House debates

Tuesday, 7 March 2023

Questions without Notice

Cost of Living

3:13 pm

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

My question, it is an opposition question, is to the Prime Minister. On 30 April 2022 the Prime Minister promised that Australians would be better off under a Labor government, yet evidence before the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living has revealed that Coles, Aldi and IGA are reporting that Australians are changing the way they shop because of the government cost-of-living crisis. They're moving from normal brands to home brands and buying less beef. They're even moving from fresh food to canned food. Wasn't this just another broken promise from this out-of-touch government?

Photo of Milton DickMilton Dick (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. I give the call to the Prime Minister.

3:14 pm

Photo of Anthony AlbaneseAnthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Monash for his question. I also thank him for his support of our policy on super. I thank him for being genuine about understanding that people in his electorate—as is occurring around the country—are under real pressure. That's why, when you have a trillion dollars of Liberal Party debt, you have to make real decisions about how you manage the economy. That's why we made the decision that we did to lower the concession and not to remove it—just to make it less of a concession for the one half of one per cent who have funds in super above $3 million. That includes the 17 people who have over $100 million and the one person who has around half a billion dollars in their super.

I have respect for the fact that the member for Monash is prepared to acknowledge that governments have to make decisions to make a difference in people's lives. We, on the side of the chamber, will continue to stand up for the most vulnerable. That's why we stood up and established the robodebt royal commission, which is having such devastating evidence before it—

Photo of Milton DickMilton Dick (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will pause. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Photo of Paul FletcherPaul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it's on relevance. The question was about the cost of living. The Prime Minister has ranged over every possible topic and he needs to come to the terms of the question.

Photo of Milton DickMilton Dick (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The question was about groceries and the cost of living. I'm listening to the Prime Minister carefully, and ask him to return to the question. The Prime Minister has the call.

Photo of Anthony AlbaneseAnthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Earlier today, I spoke about the cost of living for one of my constituents. He was hit with a massive robodebt bill, even though he, in his 20s, had contracted cancer. He had expended all of his sick leave and holiday leave. He then went to Centrelink and got a payment in order to get by—in order to buy food at the supermarket, in order to survive. He got hit with a debt, a debt that he did not owe, because of the system that was put in place for robodebt by those opposite. So on top of having to deal with chemotherapy and cancer, in his 20s, he had to deal with the pressure that was on him and the anxiety that caused, which had an impact on his health. That is the real impact that people had to deal with.

We, on this side of the House, understand that people are doing it tough. We will put in place practical measures to make a difference to them. But we won't be lectured by those opposite about dealing with the most vulnerable in our community while they continue to defend their robodebt system and continue to stand up as well for the one half of one per cent who aren't saving for their retirement but who are using the system in order to gain a significant benefit through a concession that those opposite acknowledged was not sustainable. (Time expired)