Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the Budget is one of broken promises, higher taxes, more debt, lower living standards, fewer homes and more division,

(ii) the Prime Minister and the Treasurer now own the highest taxing

government in Australia's history,

(iii) Labor has locked Australia into a decade of deficits worth $150 billion, gross debt of $1.25 trillion and interest payments of more than

$42 billion a year, or about $80,000 a minute,

(iv) Australians face almost $50 billion in higher taxes, including

$15 billion in higher personal income taxes,

(v) spending remains at its highest level in 40 years outside the pandemic,

(vi) inflation is forecast to hit 5%, keeping interest rates higher for longer and leaving Australians with lower real wages and living standards,

(vii) Labor's housing taxes will mean 35,000 fewer homes, higher rents and less investment, and

(viii) Labor has again blown its immigration targets, bringing in nearly 2 million migrants over two terms and overshooting by another 90,000 over the next two years; and

(b) condemns the Government for making Australians pay more, borrow more and accept less.

This week the Labor government have handed down their fifth budget. After five budgets, Australians are entitled to ask one simple question: are they better off, more secure and more confident about the future than they were when this government took office? For too many households, I suspect that answer is plainly no. This budget follows Labor's familiar pattern—more spending, more promises and more pressure on Australians who are already doing it tough. It does not lift living standards, it does not build confidence and it does not leave Australians feeling more secure about what comes next.

I think a good budget should do three things. It should level with the Australian people and be clear and honest about the circumstances that the government find itself in and that our economy finds itself in, it should reward effort and it should make it easier for the next generation to buy a home, raise a family and get ahead. On every one of those tests, this budget falls short.

One of the clearest tests of any government is whether it keeps its faith with the people who elected it. Before the election, Australians heard a great deal about trust, integrity and keeping commitments. Indeed, in the last two elections, Australians have heard a great deal about those three things from this Labor government. Australians were told that promises made would be promises kept. They were told, 'My word is my bond.' I believe that, when you go to an election and you make commitments, you should stick to them. They were told that Labor was the party of homeownership. They are not my words. Those are the Prime Minister's words. Everyone has heard them all many, many times.

But the budget handed down this week shows a government willing to change its position when it suits, hoping that Australians won't notice or will plainly accept it. Given the reaction that we've seen to the budget this week, I think it is pretty clear that this government has not got its wish. Australians realise that they have been misled. That is why this budget reads as a budget of broken promises. It speaks the language of aspiration and homeownership—and we saw this time and again, particularly from the Treasurer in the lead-up to this budget—but it has delivered the exact opposite.

Housing is where that betrayal is felt most sharply. I know that, for some time, young Australians have been concerned about their ability to access housing. They were told by this government that buying their first home shouldn't feel impossible. But, because of the changes in the budget this week, for many young Australians, buying their own home now does feel impossible. Young Australians have done what we ask of them. They work hard. They save where they can. But rents are higher, mortgage pressure is higher and homeownership feels further away every year under this government.

This government talks constantly about affordability, yet it is making investment less certain and it's making new housing supply harder to deliver and it's taking longer to deliver. I've lost count of how many times I have said this in the lead-up to this Labor budget being handed down: you do not solve a housing shortage by making it harder to build; you do not solve a housing shortage by taxing new houses. The budget papers clearly show what we already knew—that Labor's housing taxes will mean that 35,000 fewer homes will be built, rents will be higher and there will be less investment in the housing market. Indeed, the only reason that any new houses will be built—again, it's in black and white in the budget—is the government's infrastructure fund, which they borrowed from the coalition's 2025 election policy.

Australians can see the pressures very plainly. Demand keeps rising, housing supply is constrained, rents keep climbing—again, more so because of what is in this budget—and more young people are going to conclude that the system no longer works for them. This will mean more competition for too few homes, more pressure on rents and more young Australians concluding that the system isn't working for them. This matters because Australians save and invest for one reason above all: to build security and get ahead. That is an instinct that should be encouraged, not treated with suspicion or blocked by taxes. Older generations could reasonably expect that effort would lead to security, but younger Australians are being asked to accept less opportunity, less certainty and a steeper climb, whether it's in regard to housing or other investments.

That is why consistency matters. If a government campaigns on certainty and governs by reversal, it will erode people's trust, and people's confidence will go with it. I suspect this government will find out very soon just how much people's trust in them has been eroded by the broken promises that we saw in the budget this week. That is why Australians are questioning not only this government's priorities—and it's fair enough that they should question those—but also its word.

The major problem with this budget is pretty straightforward. The Labor government cannot control its spending—another thing I've lost count of how many times I've said since I have been shadow finance minister. Governments need to choose between what is necessary and what is desirable and what is merely politically convenient. They're hard decisions. I'm not going to stand here and pretend that they aren't. But government is elected to make those hard decisions. Too often this government is choosing the third of those options; it chooses what is politically convenient as opposed to what is necessary. Every time the government reach for more spending first, they say they will achieve discipline later if they achieve it at all. This results in Australians carrying more debt without any confidence that the country is becoming stronger or more productive in return.

We read in the budget papers this week that the government's trillion-dollar debt bomb will grow to $1.25 trillion. It was written in the budget in black and white. That means Australians are paying $80,000 a minute in interest on that debt bomb. That is real. Every dollar spent servicing debt is a dollar that cannot be used to ease pressure on families, strengthen government services or create room for real tax relief. And as I've said many times, the heaviest burden for all this will fall on Australians of my generation and younger. They are the ones who will inherit the bill for decisions they did not make and will be left paying higher taxes to pay off that debt, unless government can get its spending under control.

At a time when households have already endured years of cost-of-living pressures, the case for budget restraint should be obvious. Indeed, I and my colleagues have been making that case for months. Yet this Labor government continues to expand spending as though there are no long-term consequences to these decisions. But Australians understand that, and they see through it. When government spending runs too high for too long, families feel it in their bills, in their mortgages and in the sense that no matter how hard they work they are not getting ahead. We know this government was fuelling inflation with government spending that was at historic highs well before the crisis in the Middle East that has resulted in higher fuel prices on our own shores. As I said, good budget management is about discipline and growth and about ensuring that the next generation is not left with a weaker economy and a tax burden. Yet that is what the budget this week is framing up for the future for all Australians.

We hear a lot from this government about intergenerational fairness. I think intergenerational fairness means recognising that today's fiscal choices shape tomorrow's opportunities. On that test, this is a budget that pushes costs forward and tells younger Australians they will have to pay for them later. That is not a prudent government. This government's ambition will come with a long-term price, and they have shown no desire to try and bring that price down.

Another issue is this government's migration policy, which, frankly, has not been matched with capacity in local infrastructure. Australia as a country has been strengthened by migration. People who come here work hard, contribute and become part of our national story. These people have helped build the country we are all so proud of. But a serious migration program must be matched by serious planning. That means housing. It means transport, schools, hospitals and local infrastructure. I recognise that not all of that is the responsibility of federal government, but a big part of it is the responsibility of the federal government. When that planning from federal government is missing, pressure builds everywhere at once. Australians can see those pressures right now in increased rents, congestion through our cities, stretched services, and the growing difficulty of living close to where they work and raise their children. All Australians are asking for is a competent government that aligns population growth with housing supply and infrastructure delivery. When that alignment is missing, confidence falls and people start to think the system is drifting rather than being governed and working in their favour.

We know this Labor government cannot match migration with homes and infrastructure, so it cannot credibly claim that it has this challenge under control. This government is not building enough homes, by their own budget's admission, and they have increased migration to a point where it is clearly not keeping up with the demands in infrastructure that we see across the country. Their own budget shows, despite the fact that they claim to have migration under control, that there will be more than two million migrants in two terms of this government. Where are they going to live? Where are Australians going to live? These are fair questions that I know many Australians are asking this week.

As I've said, this budget leaves Australians with less confidence, less capacity and less reason to believe that this government has a serious plan, because this budget didn't present a serious plan. This budget has asked households which are already under strain to accept higher costs, weaker incentives and a more uncertain future. Living standards matter. Economic security matters. It matters to me, and it matters to so many of my colleagues, that younger Australians know that effort in this country can still lead to a good life, but that is not a sense that young Australians are getting from this government right now, particularly not given the budget that they've handed down this week. This budget does not meet any of those tests. Australia deserves better than a government that spends too much, breaks its word and cannot match growth with capacity, and young Australians in particular expect and deserve so much more from a government that has promised them so much and seemingly delivered so little.