Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. The cost-of-living crisis under this government is leading to record demand for help and support across Australia as many families struggle to even afford the essentials. Lifeline has experienced their biggest January on record. Other charities are seeing increases in requests for support, among them Foodbank, Salvos and Vinnies. Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence without constant interjecting.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will remain silent for the rest of question time.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moore for his question, and I acknowledge that so many people are doing it tough. Always, someone needing support from a food bank—or, in my local area, Addi Road—is one too many. That's why the government is doing what we can to make a difference on the cost of living. That's why we have fee-free TAFE, that's why we have cheaper medicines and that's why, from tomorrow, we will have cheaper child care. That's why we're pleased with the unemployment figures and the fact that so many jobs have been created in our first 10 months in office, something that seems to be denigrated by those opposite.

But we also know from the robodebt evidence that those opposite presided over a circumstance where the most vulnerable people, who were Centrelink recipients, not only were getting their income in a tough circumstance; they were actually getting these massive illegal debts. One of the people who gave evidence before the robodebt royal commission was Madison. She said this: 'I was so overwhelmed by the debt and feeling as though I was in trouble from Centrelink and the government that I attempted suicide. I'm very grateful to have survived, but I know that other victims of robodebt were not as lucky. I want the former government to understand that you need to get things right.' That is what Madison, a survivor, had to say.

Nathan Kearney had this to say: 'I'm still angry at the people involved who didn't speak up, the people who disregarded human decency to chase the next step in their career or to exact revenge on the computer assigned undeserving poor. The royal commission is necessary. A lot of us still need a resolution. We remember the incessant debt collector calls. We remember how the debt blew out all our other living expenses.'

That's what those opposite presided over as a conscious decision, even after they were advised that it was illegal, and the minister at the time said, 'Oh well, that's what cabinet ministers do.'