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

A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Labor's Budget is a Budget for an election, not one for our country's future prosperity, and at a time when living standards have suffered the biggest collapse on record and when the security environment is the most dangerous since the Second World War, it fails to deal with the economic and national security challenges our country faces.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first sentence of this matter of public importance says:

Labor's Budget is a Budget for an election, not one for our country's future prosperity …

Let me repeat that: the first sentence of the matter of public importance for today says:

Labor's Budget is a Budget for an election, not one for our country's future prosperity …

I will very shortly demonstrate that point with material drawn directly from Labor's fourth budget, presented last night.

When he was seeking the endorsement of the Australian community to be Prime Minister, Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said—and I'll say this very clearly—'Families will be better off under a Labor government.' So said Anthony Albanese. He also said, 'Under our watch, what we have is a plan to reduce costs for working families.' Well, three years later, we know that that has just not been the case. Australian families have been ravaged by cost-of-living pressures. They've been ravaged by mortgage stress. And we know, as of today, there have been 27,000 small business insolvencies. But when Australians go to vote, I hope that they will think not about the next few weeks but the next few years, because in last night's budget papers was a clear indication that the future of this country is now perilous. The economic crisis—the financial insecurity—that has ravaged families and small business is now a national financial and economic crisis. Let me tell you why.

The budget papers show that gross debt for our country will surpass $1 trillion for the first time ever next financial year. The budget papers also show that the 10-year timetable that had existed to bring our budget back to balance has now been surpassed and that, now, bringing our budget back into balance is in the never-never. More than that, pre-election decisions made by this government—indeed, by Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, who's in the chamber this afternoon—have worsened the budget bottom line by $34.9 billion. The government's decisions made before the election has even started have worsened the budget bottom line by $34.9 billion. Then the discretionary decisions of the government, which are decisions made by the government in the normal course of governing the country, have worsened the budget bottom line by $112 billion. This information is contained in Labor's own budget that was delivered last night.

So you're asking yourself: how are we paying for this? Let me tell you how you are paying for this. Revenue to government has increased in this country on the back of increased takings from personal income taxes and from very, very high commodity prices for things like iron ore, coal and gas. That is how these things are being paid for. It's not because the government has demonstrated any blood, sweat or tears in making sure the books are balanced, in making sure that your hard-earned taxpayer dollar is being put to the best possible use in the government—no, not at all. The $34.9 billion of extra pre-election decisions and the $112 billion of discretionary decisions taken by the government are all paid for off the back of increased personal income taxes and high commodity prices for iron ore, coal and gas.

Government spending, as demonstrated in this budget, is up 8.7 per cent to $731 billion, and federal spending is forecast to hit 27 per cent of GDP next financial year. It has not been that high for over 40 years. So what does this mean? In an uncertain and volatile world, if things were to go bad for our country, if iron ore prices were to collapse, if prices for coal and gas were to collapse, guess who would be left stranded? You, the Australian family and the Australian small business, because in that budget last night there is no insurance policy for when things go wrong in this country. There is no lifejacket for the Australian economy in last night's budget. If you're voting for the future, you must vote Labor last.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Smith, for the opportunity to talk about Labor's fourth budget and about how Labor is building Australia's future. Under Labor, jobs are up, with over a million new jobs created on our watch. Under Labor, wages are up, and we have backed pay rises which have ensured that the national minimum wage has risen by almost $7½ thousand per year. Under Labor, inflation is down. Inflation is now a third of what it was at its peak, and we have gotten inflation down without sacrificing Australians' jobs and without sacrificing their wages. Under Labor, on our watch, interest rates are heading down. They are heading in the right direction. And all of this has happened while we have been providing direct cost-of-living relief—the cost-of-living relief that Australians need and that Australians deserve: tax cuts, which you opposite oppose; more Medicare bulk-billing; cheaper medicine; and energy bill relief. All of this has happened on the watch of, with the hard work of, our Treasurer, Mr Chalmers—a Treasurer who has delivered the biggest improvement to the budget bottom line in a single parliamentary term ever, a Treasurer who has delivered not one but two budget surpluses in three years, when those opposite could not deliver one budget surplus in almost 10 years in office. We know you got the mugs printed, but you did not deliver the budget surplus.

Now, we need to talk about the alternative Treasurer; we need to talk about Angus. I know that most of those on the other side don't want to hear it.

Most of you don't want to hear it, but I know that some of you do want to hear about Mr Taylor, Senator Bragg.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bragg?

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

A point of order, Acting Deputy President: I believe that the standing orders require all senators to use the correct titles of members of the other house.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. I did indicate to Senator Walsh, in a non-verbal way, that she was out of order. But go ahead, Senator Walsh.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to talk about Mr Taylor; we really need to talk about Mr Taylor. And I do know that some of those opposite will want to hear this, too. I know that some of those opposite want to talk about Mr Taylor, too. Given the leaking, and the leaking of the appeals to stop the leaking, from Mr Dutton's party room, it's pretty clear that many of those opposite want to talk about Mr Taylor. The compare-and-contrast on the alternative Treasurer, Mr Taylor, could not be more stark. Australians should not allow Mr Taylor anywhere near Australia's budget. Australians should not allow Mr Taylor anywhere near Australia's economy. Mr Taylor cannot even tell Australians how much the coalition's nuclear never-never nonsense will cost Australians. He says it will cost 44 per cent less—44 per cent less than some amount that he can't identify, despite having procured his own dodgy costings of this nuclear never-never policy.

Well, I am 100 per cent sure that Mr Taylor is about 40 per cent sure of what is actually going on in this country right now. Last night in the same interview, just moments apart, he confirmed that he would not back Labor's income tax cuts but he would cut 41,000 jobs from the Public Service. What a sell from the alternative Treasurer for the Australian people—41,000 job cuts, but no tax cuts! There would be cuts to the services that those public servants provide, but no tax cuts. There would be $340 billion in budget cuts that he won't tell you about until after the election, but no tax cuts for the Australian people. This is the Liberals' great pitch to Australians right now: job cuts, service cuts, budget cuts—but no tax cuts. Well done, Angus—well done, Mr Taylor!

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you please refer to members of the other place with their correct titles. Thank you.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was going to move on, but: well done, Mr Taylor!

The facts in our budget are clear. The Australian economy is turning a corner. We know that jobs are up under Labor. We know that wages are up under Labor. We know that inflation is down under Labor. We know that interest rates are headed in the right direction under Labor. And we know that under Labor every Australian is being offered a tax cut, which you oppose.

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

Well, this is a budget that does nothing for small business. The Council of Small Business Organisations itself says it was forgotten by the government in the budget. It does nothing for growth; there is no agenda for growth. This confirms that we are living through a period where the government has no ambition for Australia's future and wants to push any challenging issue under the carpet.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect is the recitation of old rhetoric from now four budgets, where the government has promised now four times that it will deliver housing policies, which have clearly failed. Four times the government have announced, in four budgets, a housing agenda which is yet to build a single house. It would be hard to choose, when you go through the dreadful budget speech of Mr Chalmers, which quote is the worst, but I'd have to say that it's probably this one here:

Our $33 billion plan will help build 1.2 million new homes before the decade is out.

This is a target—1.2 million new houses—which, as any and every economist and housing specialist and even the Treasury itself has shown, the government has no chance of ever meeting.

It shows how out of touch this government is that every time we meet here in Canberra we hear how great things are and how this government, the Labor government, has done such a great job. We hear that people should be so happy and fortunate and people should come to Canberra and give their thanks to Mr Chalmers and Mr Albanese for doing such a great job. But one of the reasons that younger Australians are so squeezed and so annoyed about housing is that housing construction has collapsed under this government. This government has presided over a collapse in housing construction and a massive influx of immigrants. One million people have come into the country in the last couple of years, and housing construction has collapsed. There are a million new people and only 160,000 new houses a year. You don't need an economics degree, a PhD or a school-leaving certificate to work out the mathematics. A million more people all need somewhere to live. You can't live nowhere. They need houses, and this government has collapsed the building of new houses. Tradespeople, builders, developers—they all know. If you're not sure, I can tell you, because I asked the Parliamentary Library. Under the last government, on average, 195,000 houses were built every year. The peak, of 210,000 houses, was in 2018. Under this government, we're down to 170,000 houses. There are a million more people and we're heading south on housing construction, yet we hear, in the budget speech, 'We're going to build 1.2 million new houses.' There is no trajectory that anyone can show us or that will ever be realised. So this is a bizarre budget full of untruths.

Perhaps the silver medallist here is his quote about the Housing Australia Future Fund:

The first two rounds—

Mr Chalmers says—

of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund are helping build … 18,000 … homes …

Well, guess what? After 18 months of operation, how many houses has the HAFF built? Is it 18,000? Is it 14,000? Is it 12,000? Is it 5,000? Is it a hundred? It's a duck. It's on a duck.

I believe, when you read the budget speech, the most striking thing is that the Labor Party think that the Australian people are stupid and that Labor can roll out this rubbish every year they have a budget and commit to things and promise things that they know will never materialise. Meanwhile, in the real world, people can't afford to buy a first house or a first flat because housing construction has collapsed and migration is through the roof. This is a callous and cold budget, the government should be ashamed, and now the Australian people get to have their say.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The single greatest threat to Australia's national security is climate change. Scientists know this. Defence knows this. Why, then, did the Treasurer fail to mention climate or environment once in his budget speech last night? Because, for them, it's an inconvenient truth standing between them and their corporate cosy-up agenda. And now, with a middle finger to every person and community group doing their best to protect our precious forests, waterways and wildlife, Labor and the coalition are teaming up to ram through legislation that waters down our already weak nature laws. Their goal? Protecting the toxic salmon industry at any cost. The maugean skate is on the brink of extinction in Macquarie Harbour—nothing to see here. Environment laws might get in the way of corporate profits for a bunch of multinational corporations—quick, get laws through under the cover of the budget. That the government appears to be willing to put the future of an entire species at risk at the behest of one industry is truly outrageous.

Those on both sides of the chamber are completely captured by big business. And while this decision was made with the stinky, rotten salmon industry in mind, it will have far-reaching consequences beyond that. It will encourage big polluters to seek other industry specific carve-outs—a free for all. It will make it harder for communities to challenge dirty fossil fuel projects or deforestation projects. It will further erode the role of science in policymaking at a time when we should be strengthening it. I mean, Labor's own conservation advice describes the pollution created by salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour as being 'catastrophic'. This isn't just one policy; it's a dangerous trend of science and evidence being wound back. Labor once promised to uphold the role of environmental science through stronger laws, but now, three years later, they've backtracked, erasing nature from the agenda.

This government's latest attack on nature means that environmental protections are weaker now than when Labor took government three years ago. They are weaker now. Environment laws are meant to protect the environment, not green light destruction. Just once, Labor, show some courage for our kids--our kids who have the right to inherit a world in the same order as we've been able to enjoy it. Put the future of our precious, beautiful planet first, ahead of a quick corporate buck. This is an insult to every Australian who trusted Labor to deliver real change in nature. It's a betrayal to our environment, traditional owners and future generations. It's disgraceful, and everyone in this chamber with a conscience knows it. So, with the election imminent, it is clear that neither major party will deliver on environmental protection. Only the Greens will keep fighting for our climate justice and a secure future for all.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again—bracket creep. Australians rightly complain that politicians from both major parties have no vision for our country's future prosperity. It's all just short-term budgets that never look beyond the next election. That's why, tonight, One Nation is moving an amendment to the 2025 budget that would benefit our children's children and everyone in Australia today. If successful, our amendment would remove the secret tax, the stealth tax, known as bracket creep. Bracket creep is where the government quietly takes more tax from Australians because of inflation. The government uses inflation to take more tax out of every Australian. This simple amendment to end bracket creep would save Australians tens of billions of dollars each year. It's another One Nation plan to put more money back in your pocket.

So let me explain. As inflation continues, wages increase to try and keep up. A salary might go up from $100,000 to $120,000, yet, because of inflation, you can still only buy the same things because prices have risen. Despite being able to only buy the same things, your tax bill goes up because, on paper, the salary has gone up and been pushed into a higher tax bracket with a higher rate of tax. Inflation pushes up the salary you need to survive every year, yet the tax thresholds stay in exactly the same place. As salaries increase, they enter a higher tax rate bracket. This is bracket creep. One Nation would end it. We would index the income tax thresholds to inflation so you do not enter a higher tax rate bracket, making sure Australians don't pay a higher tax rate because of inflation.

Tax reform is mentioned a lot in parliament. Here's a genuine opportunity to do it. Australians are being squeezed from every angle. The current tax system is bleeding Australians dry while letting foreign multinational corporations rip off the country. Tonight, One Nation is proposing a policy that will tip the balance back towards helping Australians because we believe in putting more money back in Australians' pockets. At the election, vote One Nation No. 1.

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

Let me show what we're doing regarding prosperity, for example, and workplace rights. We're banning non-compete clauses, to help another three million Australians. But the Liberals and Nationals, of course, have opposed or voted against so many initiatives about workers' rights and better pay.

These initiatives include: multi-employer bargaining reform, including establishing the supported bargaining stream for low-paid feminised industries; empowering the Fair Work Commission to arbitrate and track more bargaining disputes; banning unilateral termination of enterprise agreements; getting rid of or sunsetting zombie clauses, zombie agreements; simplifying the better off overall test; improving the process of enterprise agreement approval by the Fair Work Commission; simplifying the process to initiate bargaining; simplifying the process to conduct protected action ballots; making job security and agenda equality objects of the Fair Work Act; limiting the use of repeat fixed term projects; prohibiting sexual harassment in connection with work; establishing a pay equity expert panel and caring community sector expert panel within the Fair Work Commission; prohibiting pay secrecy clauses; making it easier to request flexible work arrangements; increasing the cap on small-claim proceedings, prohibiting job ads with illegal pay rates; improving workers compensation access for firefighters; strengthening protection for migrant workers; giving stronger access to unpaid parental leave; adding superannuation contributions to the National Employment Standards; improving long-service leave access for casual workers; improving paid parental leave, including increasing it from 18 weeks to 26 weeks; legislating paying superannuation on paid parental leave; introducing 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave; advocating for low-paid workers in the Fair Work Commission's minimum wage case; fully funding aged-care and early childhood wage increases in the federal budget; same job, same pay for labour hire workers; changes to casual definition and conversions; criminalisation of wage theft; extending the power of the Fair Work Commission to employee-like forms of work; giving workers the right to challenge unfair contractual terms; allowing the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable; and providing stronger protections against discrimination, adverse action and harassment.

In the five quarters before our first budget, in 2022, real wages fell in annual terms. That's what the coalition delivered to this country and to working Australians. Now, under an Albanese Labor government, they've grown for the last five consecutive quarters. Under this government, there's more to do—but there's more being done than they have ever done across the aisle. They're determined to make sure they oppose every initiative about making sure that working people have fair rights and fair arrangements. What's quite clear is these regulations and these opportunities are opportunities for good business when they're competing with bad business, business that turns around and their objective is to exploit and take advantage.

The idea of getting rid of these laws, opposing these laws, means all Australians—those in those businesses that are striving to do better, to include their workforce, pay decent wages—are competing with the scoundrels that these people want to empower by taking these laws away. It's in their DNA—the Liberals and Nationals—when people are doing it tough, to rip away their rights.

Mr Barnaby Joyce said, in March 2024, that increases to the minimum wage were 'window dressing', when hundreds of dollars more were paid than the minimum wage. Mr Peter Dutton said that he was deeply concerned about our workplace relations laws, because they were going to 'result in higher wages'. In October 2022, he said that. Mr Angus Taylor said that he opposes multi-employer bargaining because, heaven forbid, it pushes up wages! That was in September 2022. You have to go to their DNA. Scott Morrison, then Prime Minister, in May 2022, said that Albanese's call for a $1 hourly increase to the minimum wage was 'reckless and dangerous', and that he was a 'loose unit'. Mathias Cormann, then finance minister, said in March 2019 that low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture. That's exactly what Mr Dutton wants to deliver for all Australians. The coalition want you to work longer for less. They want you to not earn more and to not keep more of what you earn. That's the opposite of what we want. We want to see you decently—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator Brockman.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always entertaining following Senator Sheldon. At least he made an attempt to defend this government's record. I'll give you that, Senator Sheldon. You made an attempt. Of course, what you read out was the laundry list that the union movement gave you before you got into government, but we'll put that to one side and we'll talk about the budget from last night, a budget that has disappeared without a trace.

I've been around this building in one capacity or another for quite a long time, and I have never seen a budget go down like a lead balloon in quite the way the Labor budget from yesterday evening did. There's the slogan about tax cuts. Clearly the Treasurer wanted a front-page headline with the words 'tax cuts'. He didn't care how small it was. He didn't care if it was 70 cents a day. While, on the other hand, inflation under this Labor government eats that up literally in minutes.

Inflation under this government has made every Australian family worse off, not by 70 cents a day but by tens of thousands of dollars over the course of this government, whether it's electricity bills, where the Labor Party's renewables-only policy has pushed up prices by thousands; whether it's mortgages, where inflation has caused interest rate increases under this Labor government that have put tens of thousands of dollars onto everyday Australians' mortgages; or it's the 20,000 small businesses that have gone into administration under this Labor government. Those small businesses are facing the pressure of high interest rates, high supply costs and the inability to pass those costs on to their consumers and, at the same time, are facing the increasing involvement of the union movement, which is imposing itself on workplaces where there was no desire to have the union involved. You've got to remember, as this Labor government is out there shelling for the union movement, that the union movement represents less than one in 10 private sector workers. Unions do not represent workers. They represent a tiny cadre of workers in this country, and this Labor government is merely here to support those unions.

As this government goes down like a lead balloon, let's look at what wasn't in the budget. What was completely absent from the budget? Any mention of the importance of the North West Shelf decision. In fact, while the budget was being delivered, Tanya Plibersek again kicked the can down the road for a decision on the extension of the North West Shelf project. Everyone knows the North West Shelf project will be extended, but Western Australia will be at a near-term gas supply risk if that project is not extended. This is blocking $30 billion worth of investment. Once again, this is not a new—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet the cheerleaders from the Greens, who are egging on Tanya Plibersek and the Labor Party in kicking this can down the road, are just hoping they're going to be in a position where they can force a minority Labor government into blocking it completely. The damage that would do to the Western Australian economy should not be lost on any Western Australian. If you are a FIFO worker; if you are involved in the oil and gas industry; if you're involved in any part of the manufacturing sector in WA—and 70 per cent of Western Australia's industrial energy comes from gas—if you are one of the many tens of thousands of households in Perth that rely on gas; and if you are one of the many tens of thousands of workers that rely on, yes, supplying gas to key allies overseas like Japan, then, for goodness sake, Australians, this is what you're going to vote for. The Greens will be wagging the Labor Party dog.

It's already a dog of a government, but, if we have a minority Labor government after the next election, then the Greens are going to be wagging that Labor Party dog of a government, and it will be terrible for Western Australia. It will be an extraordinary imposition not just on major businesses but on every individual Western Australian.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.