Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Hansard source

If we want to talk about valedictory addresses, the member for McEwen should have his ready because he's not going to be here after the election.

We all know how this matter of public importance came up. Overnight the federal secretary of the Australian Labor Party and Tim Gartrell, the campaign manager for the Leader of the Opposition, would have come in and said, 'Look, Leader of the Opposition, we've finally got our research and it says the cost of living is an important issue.' Finally the Leader of the Opposition might have absorbed the fact that Australians face ongoing challenges in their economic circumstances, and it would have been a wake-up call for him. So he would have said, 'Our solution is: let's go and have a debate about it in the parliament.' The Leader of the Opposition would have gone in and said, 'I've got the answer; I'm going to get up and give a compelling speech,' and the shadow Treasurer would have fought him left, right and centre: 'No, I want this matter of public importance speech!' But, in the end, they would have eventually turned to each other and asked: 'What is it that we're going to say? What is it that we're going to say about an economic plan?' And the answer is: they don't know. As a consequence, neither of them have actually come to the dispatch box today to articulate what their economic plan is.

We heard this during question time, where it didn't seem to matter what question was asked of the Prime Minister: the Labor Party had no plan and no solution to address the economic challenges this country faces. And we know they're probably working on the budget reply speech right now, off in their offices, still scratching their heads about how it is that they're going to sell it. But it's a great privilege, I've got to say—despite the protest of the member for Griffith, leaving the chamber—to be able to speak on this matter of public importance, because those of us who have a long enough memory will remember the final day of the last sitting of parliament. It was a similar day. We had a budget reply speech from the Leader of the Opposition. That was the last speech. The second-last speech I remember very well, not least because it was given by me, and I tabled the report of the Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the impact and implications of the abolition of refundable franking credits. I remember that speech very well, and I'm sure many members, in hindsight, should have paid more attention to it. It reported the direct economic impact and the impact on people's livelihoods from the abolition of refundable franking credits, which would have led to a million Australians being pushed down the financial stairs should a Labor government be elected. And it is not just that policy but also, of course, their $387 billion worth of new taxes that would have had a direct impact on livelihoods, economic welfare and wellbeing.

That's why on this side of the chamber we don't take lectures about the cost of living, because the cost-of-living challenges of Australians—which flow through from supply-chain challenges, inflation, interest rates and the like—are never benefited because we have an alternative government whose only solution is to take away from Australians their livelihoods and their income, as Labor so wants to do at every single opportunity. And that is the ultimate choice that affects Australians in the lead-up to the next election. Who is it, in the end, that they trust to understand the importance of empowering Australians to be free to make decisions for themselves? Who do they trust to make decisions to empower Australians to be free to make their own choices and to live their own lives? We know full well that the opposition cannot be trusted with those choices, for a very simple reason.

The member for Melbourne at the moment is measuring for curtains in the hope of the opportunity to be the balance of power in a future government led by this Leader of the Opposition. He is measuring for curtains. And, funnily enough, I have never seen the Greens turn their noses up at any spending measure paid for by Australian taxpayers. In fact, it is quite the reverse: they've consistently argued, at every point, that they want to spend more money, more resources—taken from the Australian taxpayer—except in one area.

I know that the last time I said this the member for Melbourne got outraged enough that he stormed into the parliament and declared outright that he wanted a retraction, where they want to reduce the amount of spending for defence. Now, I understand that he takes exception to members in this chamber highlighting his deliberate attack on our defence forces and the security of this nation. What is it that they want to cut? They say it's not 50 per cent. Well, they have a responsibility to explain to the Australian people—particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, whom they want to enter into coalition government with—what they're going to cut. Are they going to cut our armed service personnel's pay? Are they going to cut their kit? Are they going to cut their equipment? Are they going cut the submarines that we need, the ships that we need and the armoured personnel vehicles that we need to defend this nation and secure its sovereignty and its interests here and abroad? And make no mistake: the Labor Party isn't just joined by the Greens but also by the Independents, who are lining up.

The biggest cost-of-living choice they face is how they're going to spend the multiple millions of dollars that they're splashing around the country left, right and centre, approaching communities with their voice to get elected to parliament as an acquisition as part of an investment portfolio. They don't understand the economic challenges that Australians face—making sure people can pay their mortgage, afford basic services and, of course, make sure the budget is balanced at the end of the week, challenges many Australians face every day. That is why our model and the Liberal approach towards economic empowerment are about trusting Australians to make their own choices, because that is actually what a budget is really about.

The Labor Party has always approached a budget as a pathway to empower themselves by putting their hands straight into the hip pocket of Australians and ripping out as much of it as they can so they can use it to decide how they will impose conformity on the country, whereas we—the Liberals and Nationals—understand that the pathway to economic empowerment is leaving as much of that money in their pockets as possible. It is a pathway to make sure Australians are empowered to make their own choices and decisions, and it is to make sure that they can support themselves so that they are in the best position to help and assist others. We understand that the foundations and success of our country, particularly the economic success, are built on strong citizens, because strong citizens make strong families, strong families make strong communities and strong communities make a strong nation. That is the basis on which we back Australians to be a able to get a job and support them and their family.

The numbers are crystal clear. The reality is we have an unemployment rate of four per cent, one of the lowest in Australia's history and something that we should be immensely proud of, particularly off the back of the enormous challenges we face as a consequence of COVID, where—let's face it—all the international forecasts, all the international data, all the Treasury forecasts and all the Reserve Bank forecasts said we would not be anywhere near it. It is the lowest level of unemployment in 48 years. Since we have come to government there are around 1.9 million more Australians in work in Australia, including, critically, 1.1 million more women in work. We see the pathway of economic empowerment as something that is good not just for families but for women and for every Australian, because it is so important. Currently at four per cent, the unemployment rate is well down from the 5.7 per cent when Labor last left office.

In the budget on Tuesday night, there were measures that understood that there are cost-of-living pressures today and that, of course, they will be there in the future. Critically, we understand the very specific and unique challenges that are faced around the cost of fuel, particularly as a consequence and a flow-on from the Russian aggression against Ukraine. For the next six months, Australians will save 22c a litre every time they fill up their car. A family with two cars, who fill up once a week, could save $30 a week, around $700 over the next six months, as a consequence of a reduction in fuel excise, recognising the particular reality we all face at this critical time. It doesn't matter who you are in Australia, we understand the price of fuel has a direct inflationary impact if it continues at current prices and if we don't support such important and critical measures for the future of household budgets and balance sheets.

Of course, we also announced a new one-off $420 cost-of-living tax offset for more than 10 million low- and middle-income earners. Individuals already receiving the low- and middle-income tax offset will now receive up to $1,500 and couples up to $3,000 from 1 July this year. This is targeted immediate relief for Australians who are facing cost-of-living pressures, and of course there are also more than six million Australians in other circumstances, such as pensioners, carers, veterans, jobseekers, eligible self-funded retirees and concession cardholders, who will get a new one-off $250 cost-of-living payment delivered.

This government understands that cost-of-living pressures are real and significant. They have a direct flow-on and impact on the decisions and choices Australians make. We understand the way to address them is to empower Australians to take control of their own economic circumstances, versus the Labor approach, which is to empower themselves through raising more taxes, imposing them on Australian households and, of course, dictating to them their choices and their future opportunities. I can assure you that, at the next election, that pathway will be rejected.

See this speech in context