Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister, under the Albanese Labor government Australians' living standards have collapsed by 8.7 per cent. This is worse than the declines seen during the disastrous Whitlam government and the worst in the OECD. New analysis shows that Labor has no plan to restore Australians' standard of living. The Prime Minister is taking our country in the wrong direction. How can Australians possibly afford another three years of Labor?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's got a lot of nerve asking about incomes, living standards and inflation after the mess that they left us to clean up. If you look right across the board, inflation was higher and rising on their watch, living standards were falling substantially already when we came to office, and real wages were falling substantially when we came to office.

Now, having acknowledged that there was an issue with pressure on living standards, the choice for this parliament over the course of the last 2½ years was to help people with that or to leave them hanging. This side of the House has spent 2½ years with cost-of-living relief as its No. 1 priority, and at every single turn those opposite have voted against that cost-of-living relief. So how dare they come in here and talk about living standards, wages and inflation when inflation was three times higher on their watch; when real wages fell for five consecutive quarters, and now they've grown for four consecutive quarters on our watch; when living standards were falling by 1.7 per cent in the quarter of the election, three times faster than now; when living standards fell 14 quarters on their watch—

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

The Treasurer will pause. Order! The member for Hume on a point of order.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Relevance, Mr Speaker: there was no 'compare and contrast with the previous government' under that, but you can compare and contrast with the Whitlam government if you like.

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

Order! The part of the question I'm most interested in was, 'How can Australians afford another three years of Labor?' The Treasurer is disagreeing with that, and he is saying why that is not the case by looking at why he believes the figures that he's quoting—

You don't need to point to anyone. If you're asking a question about that, he's going to contest that and he's going to give evidence as to why he thinks that's wrong. So he is being directly relevant. He's not talking about alternative policies. He's talking about facts and numbers. I'm listening to him carefully, but, if you've got a broad question around the past and the government's record, he's going to defend it—or the Whitlam government. No matter what it is, he's going to defend what he's doing, so he's being directly relevant. He has the call.

The member for Moreton will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Moreton then left the chamber.

We're not having those sorts of interjections. The member for Hume is entitled to raise his point of order.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand it, I'm asked about living standards. Living standards are measured by real household disposable income. That was going backwards by 1.7 per cent in the quarter of the election, and, on that measure, living standards fell 14 quarters under those opposite. These are facts. No amount of precooked points of order that somebody has to type out for him in order to make him look spontaneous is going to make up for the fact that living standards were falling when we came to office, real wages were falling when we came to office and inflation was three times higher under them than under us and it was rising fast on their watch.

So the point that I'm making is I'm acknowledging the pressure on people and the pressure on living standards. The choice for the parliament over and over again over the course of the last 2½ years is whether to help people with their cost of living or to ensure that people go further backwards. People would be much worse off were it not for the cost-of-living measures that we have budgeted for three times, and people would be much worse off under those opposite. We know that because they voted against the cost-of-living help. We know that because we know their record of coming after wages and Medicare, coming after housing and all of the things which matter most when it comes to living standards in our community.

This side of the House acknowledges the pressures that people are under and acknowledges that when we came to office people were going backwards. That's why we're getting inflation down, getting wages up, strengthening Medicare and investing in housing, despite the opposition of those opposite.