I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Government for failing to get inflation under control;

(2) notes Australians have now faced a sixteenth interest rate rise, placing further pressure on families, mortgage holders and small businesses;

(3) recognises the rising cost of everyday essentials under the Government including:

(a) housing up 23.9 per cent;

(b) electricity up 37.0 per cent; and

(c) insurance up 43.3 per cent;

(4) calls out the Government's high spending, with spending at its highest share of the economy since 1986-87 outside the pandemic; and

(5) calls on the Government to rein in spending, reduce inflationary pressure and ease the cost of living burden on Australian families and small businesses.

I move this motion today on inflation. It's something I've spoken about in this place many, many times, but I feel that, if we keep repeating it, it might sink in that this is actually a significant issue in this country at the moment. It goes to what a courageous government is all about, because this requires honest conversations with the Australian people. I say that after experiencing, along with the people that I represent on the southern Gold Coast, 16 interest rate rises under this government. We have a situation where the government are failing to get inflation under control, and there's no mystery as to how they do it. It's not as if there is no ability to do so. We're seeing the cost of housing up 23.9 per cent, the cost of electricity up 37 per cent and the cost of insurance up 43.3 per cent. These are metrics that are concerning all Australians, and they're concerning them because they're seeing them in their bills. It's at a time when the government itself is spending at record levels. We're seeing spending by the government at its highest share of the economy outside the pandemic since 1986 or 1987. So this motion calls upon the government to reconsider its approach, it calls upon the government to develop a sense of courage in the way it governs this country, and it calls on the government to ultimately rein in spending, reduce inflationary pressure and ease the cost-of-living burden on Australian families and small business.

The situation we find ourselves in as a country reminds me of a quote by Ronald Reagan when he was the President of the United States. He said that the problem is not that people are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much. That is exactly what we're seeing now, because at the end of the day I'm not quite convinced that the government understands that there are actually only two sources of money that governments can access whenever they want to fund further expenditure: they can either borrow the savings of taxpayers across this country or tax them more. Those are the two ways that government can increase its expenditure, and, on both of those fronts, Australians, quite frankly, just can't afford it right now. The government can't pretend that fiscal policy has nothing to do with inflation because, while households have been expected to tighten their belts, we're seeing Commonwealth spending having continued at historically high levels. We're now seeing a situation where the next generation is saddled with over $1 trillion of debt while the budget is still forecast to remain in deficit for decades.

There is a fundamental difference in the approach between those on that side of the chamber and those on this side of the chamber, Labor's answer is higher taxes and more spending, and the coalition's approach is to have that honest and courageous conversation with the Australian people to cut waste, to repair the budget and to give Australians more of their own money back. We've demonstrated that that can actually be done in a clear and coherent manner, because we have identified $31 billion in on-budget savings over four years, and that is even after the funding of our $20 billion Tax Back Guarantee, which will give more Australians the ability to keep more of what they earn. Those measures will still leave the budget $22 billion better off over the four years, and that matters because responsible spending is not just about rebalancing Canberra's books; reducing unnecessary government spending actually reduces pressure on inflation and interest rates.

Our proposed fiscal discipline on the coalition side includes restraining government spending growth to below economic growth, which we are not seeing at the moment under this government; it includes restoring a binding tax cap so we're not transferring the burden from the government to the taxpayer; and it includes targeting a return to budget surplus. The alternative is straightforward. Government has to do what families and small businesses across my electorate in McPherson already do every day: set priorities, live within its means and stop spending money it doesn't have. Australians can't afford another term of government spending pushing in one direction while the Reserve Bank pushes in the other. Families should not continually be asked to pay the price for Canberra's failure to exercise restraint. So I say to those opposite: cut the waste, get spending under control, take pressure off inflation and interest rates and give Australian families the opportunity to get ahead.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

What no-one will dispute is that Australians are under financial pressure like many around the world. Interest rate rises, while aimed at reducing inflation, make things even more challenging when people are already doing it tough. Australian workers are dealing with the implications of events occurring around the world, including wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. People in our communities didn't ask for these events to take place, and the fact that the economic consequences are being felt almost universally around the globe does not take the sting out of the current situation.

In periods where there are significant changes to the price of some items such as fuel, the indicator of trimmed mean inflation can help us better understand what is happening and give us a clearer picture of the health of the economy. This indicator has remained steady at 3.6 per cent for the third consecutive month in August. Inflation continues to be a challenge, but it's helpful to know the broader situation behind the headline figures. The motion makes commentary about fiscal discipline. At a time of heightened global uncertainty, that is more important than ever.

The 2025-26 final budget outcome showed that the budget bottom line is better than what was forecast at the election and has improved again since the budget. To quantify it, over the last four years, the bottom line is $230 billion or nearing a quarter of $1 trillion better than what was projected before the 2022 election. The stronger our fiscal position, the less interest costs we pay. So far, we have introduced changes that will help us avoid $70 billion in future interest costs. We remain focused on improving the bottom line and addressing inflation.

We also remain focused on helping everyday Australians with the cost of living. Doing the hard work in government is what has allowed us to deliver $17 billion in cost-of-living support over the last financial year. This has included introducing targeted fuel excise and energy bill relief; the cheaper medicines program, which has saved constituents in my electorate of Banks more than $13.5 million; investment in bulk-billing; and establishing urgent care clinics, as well as further tax cuts for every taxpayer of up to $2,800 a year. We have also introduced the mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to stamp out price gouging and combat anticompetitive practices.

It is helpful to know what experts think of Australia's economic performance, particularly independent international bodies like credit rating agencies. S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch have all recently reaffirmed the Australian government's AAA credit rating. In fact, S&P said, 'Australia's fiscal performance is sound,' while Moody's identified that the Australian government's fiscal strategy is 'supported by expenditure reforms and a record of conservative budgeting'. These are not the words of politicians; they are the words of leading global credit rating agencies, and Australia is one of only nine countries with a AAA credit rating from all three of these credit institutions.

While these are the assessments of those agencies, we know many Australians are still finding their weekly shop tough and paying their bills difficult, and they have financial security concerns. This is why we are committed to improving our bottom line, putting downward pressure on inflation whilst providing cost-of-living relief where possible. While he and I were not members of this place at the time, it is worth the member for McPherson remembering that under the previous government inflation was north of six per cent and rising and gross debt was projected to be more than $600 billion higher by the end of the decade.

This is why this is so important for us that we work together to address the pressures of inflation and debt. It requires careful balancing to ensure everyday Australians are supported and the budget is strong so that we can continue to grow and thrive as a country despite the global circumstances.

After a couple of tough years of droughts on the farm, Belinda, from my electorate, went back to work in town. After factoring in child care and fuel, she earns $5 an hour. That is life in the regions under the Albanese Labor government. Since Labor was elected, the Reserve Bank has raised interest rates 16 times. The cash rate is now 4.6 per cent, a 15-year high. Under this government, housing is up 24 per cent, electricity is up 40 per cent, and insurance is up 43 per cent. Under Labor, Australians are paying more for everything.

The Treasurer would like you to believe that this is all the fault of the Middle East. Excluding the pandemic, government spending is now at a record high since 1986. An analysis by HSBC's chief economist found $145 billion in spending blowouts since Labor came to office. In real terms, federal government spending grew 4.3 per cent last financial year, more than double what Labor projected in their 2024-25 budget. The Treasurer has completely lost control of his budget.

The Albanese Labor government is living well beyond its means. Labor is putting today's spending on the credit card, and tomorrow's generation will be left with the bill. For those of us that love to talk about intergenerational equity, what could be less fair than leaving the next generations of Australians with a trillion dollars of debt? The Treasurer cannot even admit what his own backbench can see. Labor's reckless spending is driving inflation.

But don't just take the words of Labor's backbench. Here's what the experts have to say about it. Deloitte's Stephen Smith told the Financial Review:

Australian governments are currently running expansionary fiscal policy even though the economy is … operating above its potential level of activity.

HSBC's Paul Bloxham said:

In an economy with a low speed limit, due to weak productivity growth, there are just less things that can be done all at once.

Warren Hogan of EQ Economics went further, and he said:

If the governments of Australia don't think about really cutting back recurrent spending quick smart, the cash rate might not just go up one or two more times.

To top it all off, earlier this month, the IMF downgraded Australia's growth and lifted its forecasts for unemployment. When everyone from the banks to the IMF is telling you to stop spending, it is time to listen.

Labor's answer to all of this is more tax—a new tax on trusts, changes to capital gains tax, changes to negative gearing and a new tax on superannuation. Tax receipts are already at their highest share of the economy in 20 years, and when you tax something, you get less of it. If you tax small business, you get less small business. If you tax investment, you get less investment. If you tax hard work, you get less work. Labor is trying to tax its way out of its own bad decisions, and it will not work. The problem is not too little tax; it is too much spending.

The coalition has a different plan. Our Tax Back Guarantee will deliver an automatic tax cut every single year, ending Labor's annual inflation tax. It incentivises sound economic management independent of who is in government. If a household or a business wants to spend more, it has to find savings, and bringing this Tax Back Guarantee forces government to do the same thing. A coalition government will scrap Labor's hits to small business and rein in spending, because every dollar this government wastes is a dollar that pushes up prices, pushes up rates and comes out of the pockets of families like Belinda's. Australians have tightened their belts. It is time Labor tightened its own.

In rising today to speak to this motion, I'll start by voicing what is so often lost in the economic debate. Firstly, resources are finite; need and expectations are not. Secondly, there is also an opportunity cost to inaction. Good government requires difficult trade-offs—balancing budget discipline with the community's legitimate expectation that the government will deliver essential services and invest in the nation's future. Responsible government is not about top-down cutting and developing a list of things to go on the chopping block in an effort to meet a statistical figure. It's about making careful choices for now and the future—and that's what we're doing.

Australians rightly expect governments to help keep inflation under control. Australians also expect governments to fund health care, strengthen Medicare, provide dignified and quality care for older Australians, support housing, provide a social safety net, invest in defence, respond when communities need support and ensure that workers are paid fairly. I cite the example just given by the member for Grey of his constituent Belinda, who he said was earning as little as $5 an hour when she took fuel costs and childcare costs into consideration. I don't know what Belinda does, but I can say to Belinda: if you were an aged-care worker, disability support worker or early childhood worker under a coalition government, then you would have been earning even less, because they voted against pay rises for those working in the care economy. Belinda needs the support of child care so that she can go to work. I say to Belinda: under a coalition government, you would not have received superannuation on your paid parental leave. This underscores the complexity and the difficulties of governance and balancing the budget, the priorities of fiscal discipline and the needs of the Australian people responsibly.

The challenge is always recognising that every decision has an opportunity cost. Every dollar is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere. But, equally, every dollar not invested can carry consequences for Australians who rely on essential services or on the long-term strength of our economy. Haphazard and ill-considered cuts mean future-building initiatives get overlooked. Cutting spending on programs supporting health, research and development, education, the social safety net and the care economy mean the economic circumstances of Australians like Belinda, who are at a higher risk of falling behind, will worsen. This is not fair, and this lack of investment will leave future generations with a higher debt burden. When constituents talk to me about the costs of groceries, insurance and fuel, they understand that global events play a role. They also say that this does not absolve governments of responsibility—and, in this respect, that is right. This government has been very clear—and repeatedly clear—that it has a role to play in the fight against inflation.

We've been honest about the combination of factors that drive inflation and have been clear about what tools we have available to address it. What this means is that governments must act responsibly in the areas they can control, which includes the budget, which is what this government has done. It has done this at the same time as it remains one of only nine countries with a triple A sovereign credit rating from all three major ratings agencies, with lower gross debt than every major advanced economy. Despite the commentary, this is a genuinely powerful endorsement of this government's fiscal and economic agenda, because the sovereign triple A rating is not just a measure of whether a country is good for the money; it's a measure of how it is faring politically, economically and financially.

S&P highlighted Australia's 'strong institutional settings', 'sound fiscal metrics' and Australia's strategic success in building our fuel security. Fitch said:

Australia's 'AAA' rating is underpinned by the high quality of institutions, a wealthy and high value-added economy …

Moody's said:

Despite facing successive shocks in recent years, Australia's economy has maintained a relatively stable growth trajectory compared with other advanced economies … fiscal strength is further supported by substantial private retirement savings under superannuation funds.

Is inflation too high? Yes. Are we pulling the levers to reduce it? Yes. Does this government's agenda have a laser-sharp focus on the financial and economic building blocks we need to shore up our short- and long-term economic growth and economic prosperity? Yes—and it will continue to do so.

I rise to support this motion. Right now, Australia has an inflation problem, and there's a choice about how we deal with it. Either the Reserve Bank can lift interest rates on the one-third of Australians with a mortgage—they've already done that four times this year—and that one-third of Australians cuts out nights out and holidays—and they're now starting to cut out essentials—or the federal government can reduce its spending.

Right now, Jim Chalmers and the federal government spend one in four dollars in the economy. It's actually more than that. One in four dollars are spent by this government. At the same time this one-third of Australians with mortgages have had to wear four interest rate rises this year—16 in a row—and are cutting back their spending, Treasurer Chalmers and the federal government are actually increasing their spending. They spend one in four dollars already, and they're actually increasing that. That should get the goat of every mortgage holder in Australia, because it's not fair. While you are cutting out coffees, cutting out nights out and cutting out essentials, the federal government, in spite of that, continues to increase its spending. Last month, I asked the Reserve Bank governor about what a reduction in government spending would do to inflation and interest rates. While they ducked and weaved from the question in the committee hearing, they wrote to the committee recently and confirmed in black and white that a reduction in government spending would reduce inflationary pressures and would reduce the pressure on interest rates.

The previous member was talking about advanced economies. Let's talk about advanced economies. There are 43 of them in the world that the International Monetary Fund benchmarks. Of those 43 advanced economies, Australia is the only one to have four interest rate rises this year, and we're staring down the barrel of a fifth. The International Monetary Fund is predicting that, of those 43 advanced economies, we will have the highest increase in unemployment next year. The International Monetary Fund is predicting that, of those 43 advanced economies, we'll have the fifth-highest inflation next year. We've heard the Treasurer try and blame this on the war in Iran. Well, let's go back to prior to the war in Iran. If you go back to the last benchmark prior to the war in Iran, of those 43 advanced economies, Australia had the third-highest inflation of all of them in the world. Australia is a global outlier. We are a global pariah right now, economically.

What else is an outlier about this current economy and current government? Government spending. It is at a 40-year high outside of the pandemic. Not only is it at a 40-year high; it's increasing. At the very time Australians and Australian families are cutting their budget, are cutting nights out and are forgoing things for their children and for their businesses, this treasurer continues to increase government spending. This morning, in the Sydney Morning Herald, we see that Jim Chalmers refuses to put a cap on record government spending. In spite of these facts, he continues to do it. Previously, this same treasurer declared the RBA higher interest rates were 'smashing the economy'. If the Treasurer believes these higher interest rates are smashing the economy, what is he doing to do his part? I call on the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to cut spending now. Let's try and head off a fifth interest rate rise this year.

I've met a woman in Sans Souci who was in tears, losing her house. I've seen business owners in tears, losing their businesses. We have the highest number of insolvencies on record. These are mums and dads losing their houses and their businesses, and this morning, in the press, tone-deaf to this, there was the Treasurer, refusing to put a cap on government spending. It's far beyond time this government fronted up and actually did what is right. Let's cut the federal budget, not family budgets.

Today, of all days, while that motion is being supported in the other chamber—I won't even say debated; supported—it feels a little bit different to come in and talk about a motion and oppose a motion. So I'd like to reflect a little bit on not only what it means to me to be a representative but also what it means to me to be an Australian.

I think something that the Deputy Prime Minister said in his contribution this morning was that it is incumbent on us to see the value in what the other side has to say, and that makes me think about when I'm talking to somebody whom I'm seeking to represent in Forde and we're having a discussion that I completely disagree with. I'll often say to them that there are 140,000 people in Forde and that means that there are 140,000 different right answers. I might disagree, but I don't think that anybody is necessarily right or wrong. If you were somehow able to synthesise all of those 140,000 different opinions, that is probably the most approximate thing that we could get to anything that resembles correctness.

I read this motion and I know that it does ultimately come from a good place. I know that the member for McPherson, with a good heart and a good spirit, is concerned about how tough people are doing it at the moment. Of course, he is not the only one who knows that. We are all aware of that. So today is not the day to come in boots and all and pick apart the motion from the member for McPherson. Even though I oppose it, I do recognise that he, like all of us, wants to make our country better.

I appreciate that that is a very long preamble to this motion that is essentially about economics, but it does talk about the things that I am determined to always bring up in this place for as long as I'm here. The reason we are here today is not because of the decisions made by government over the last three or four or even five years, really. This is about decisions that have been made by governments since the 1980s, when we latched onto this economic rationalist approach of allowing the private sector to do what are, essentially, public services. In housing, electricity and insurance, three areas that the member for McPherson nominates, we have seen an abrogation of the government's responsibility to do its job, which is to provide an efficient and economic level of services.

In housing, we used to have a level of public housing. South Australia had the best example. Somewhere around 40 per cent of every rental in South Australia was public housing. As the member for Makin would know, it was a policy that was brought in by the Liberal government of Thomas Playford and then backed by the Labor government of Don Dunstan. In the nineties something like 40 per cent of every rental was public housing, built around the car industry in many places. In Elizabeth, it was built to actually help the car industry by keeping the cost of labour down, because rents were low. It was actually built into the charter of the South Australian Housing Trust that it would aid in the economic development of the state.

I won't keep on at South Australia's expense; that was how it was done around the whole country. And so it was with ETSA, the Electricity Trust of South Australia. Built into that was the idea that you kept the cost of electricity down not only to help with the cost of living for workers but also to help with the cost of manufacturing for businesses. I will come back to my state. With insurance, we had something called the SGIO, the State Government Insurance Office. The hint was in the name: 'government'. By taking a collective approach to insurance, it could actually cover those costs for the community. That is the whole point of what insurance is supposed to be.

The member for McPherson's motion deserves consideration, but we are here today because of what this government has done. (Time expired)

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:15