Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hume today relating to the economy.

I know those opposite are still adjusting to what we know as government. They've spent so long in opposition, and we know they've spent the majority of time in opposition since Federation. But what they do need to start to understand is that they actually are in government now and that being in government is actually about governing. It's about taking tough decisions in tough circumstances. Now unlike those opposite, we will demonstrate some grace and acknowledge that there are plenty of global influences creating cost-of-living pressures that many, many Australians are experiencing. But what that means is it is even more important the government, which is, again, those opposite, be proactive in their response. We need to make sure that the government is making decisions that are going to have the best possible outcome for Australian families as they face the challenges that cost-of-living pressures are creating.

Our role over here is to hold those opposite to account. We need to have a look at what is being proposed and, outrageously, we will make suggestions. We will propose, having had a great depth of experience in government, some of the solutions that would make an immediate difference. One of those that we talked about today would allow pensioners, on both the disability support pension and the age pension, to increase the number of hours that they are able to work without impacting their pension. We suggested this back in June 2022, so over 100 days ago. The idea apparently has now filtered through, not in as an effective way as we proposed but now, through their jobs skills talkfest with the unions, they've come to some thought process that it might actually be worth considering. The Labor Party need to understand that they need to put the national interest first, not their interests, not just the unions' interests. They need to put all Australians' interests first and that includes small businesses, that includes families, that includes people who don't pay union fees, because the people who pay union fees are about 10 per cent of the workforce, not the 41 per cent of the workforce who are employed by small businesses, who were represented by one person verses the 33 people representing unions at the skills talkfest held last week.

We know we won't see any action taken by this government unless it gets sign-off by the unions. Their tummy gets scratched by John Setka and there they go, they say, 'The unions say we can do it.' I did note with much interest Senator Farrell's comparison between the South Australian government and the Albanese government. Well, the South Australian government gave the donation of the CFMMEU back after the ABCC's claims became public, unlike the Albanese government.

We saw in question time again today the ministers who are responsible—we know there are only four of you, because the Albanese government didn't put much weight on this chamber, so only appointed four ministers. Estimates are going to be cracking long days and weeks for you. I'm looking forward to them. Senator Polley, I hope we're there together. You know I like to give it a bit of interest for you.

They're just obfuscating when it comes to questions. They like to look back. The rear view mirror is where they're focused, because they don't have a solution and they don't have a plan. As they told us through the election campaign, they had a plan for a plan. We're just waiting to see what the plan is. They don't have a plan to address inflation, but hilariously today here they are talking about the indexation of the pension. For a very long time the policy has been that the pension has been indexed every six months in line with inflation. It's going up so much, because inflation is so high.

In fact, the last time we had inflation this high was back in the days—unfortunately, I don't go back to Woomera. I don't go back as far as Senator Farrell, but I do go back—when I was at school—to the recession we had to have. The last time inflation was as high as it is today was the recession we had to have under Prime Minister Keating. I'm looking forward to those lines coming again, because the Albanese government looks like it's insistent on emulating the failures of the Keating government. This skills fest wasn't in the way of Hawke. It was a Rudd 2020 special that's going to produce a whole lot of nothing yet again.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what a lot of codswallop we have here from the opposition this afternoon. In taking note of the minister's answer to the question of what this government is doing in relation to inflation—on small business—we have seen, from the former government's own contribution to this debate, an absolute reflection of the fact that they were missing in action on all of these issues while in government themselves.

As Senator Gallagher clearly outlined in the government's response, we are moving on past that wasted decade to absolutely get on with addressing this cost-of-living crisis. We had a wasted decade in relation to not having an energy policy for 10 years. That is 22 failed policies under the former government. That is what small business has told us. It has had real inflationary consequences, because of their lack of capacity to invest with certainty in strategic direction.

We are also dealing with the cost-of-living crisis by making submissions to the Fair Work Commission to ensure that those on the minimum wage actually get a decent pay rise. As has been highlighted, this is something that is supported broadly by business. We've even seen support from COSBOA for industrial instruments that make things simpler for them, because that too will create a more stable and less complicated business environment. It will enable them to compete, to keep employees without needing to go into their own new rounds of bargaining. We've extended some of the pandemic payments that those opposite had ended and we have kept them going. And this week we will finally be debating our climate change bill, to put in place a scheme for our nation, to give us some certainty around our energy and climate change future.

All of these elements of uncertainty and chaos propagated by the former government are absolutely seeded in the current inflation crisis.

We are working to put downward pressure on our nation's costs for businesses and households. We're doing this through cheaper child care and cheaper medicines, and we just announced this week, in the lead-up to the October budget, very important measures to support households to keep up with their medication costs. We're going from $40 a prescription down to about $32, I think it is. We also have plans to deal with the skills crisis through fee-free TAFE places. For years we've had a government that has absolutely failed to deal with critical workforce shortages or with investment in skills and training—investment that is much needed in order to make sure young people, older workers and our businesses have the skills they need now and into the future.

These are just a small handful of the things we have done in just three months, whereas those opposite seeded the problems that our government now faces and that are beleaguering households and small businesses right around the country. As the Prime Minister said, this government is pro business and is pro working with business to deal with the challenges they are facing right now. We are dealing with a decade of wasted opportunity and inaction from those opposite—and they now come in here and start blaming us all for the years and years of inaction. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the response by Senator Gallagher to Senator Hume's question. An old expression that we all know is that leopards don't change their spots, and there is nothing more certain than that Labor in government will never, ever change their spots. They talk down the economy. They're always hoping for things to go wrong and are so disappointed when they don't. They make plans for having plans. We've just heard again from the speakers opposite about all their plans to have a plan to govern. They've got summits, they've got conferences, they've got reviews and they've got royal commissions. They have everything they can to prevent them from having to make a decision.

News flash to those opposite: government is difficult; government is challenging. But in government you have to make decisions. I'm absolutely at a loss to know what the now government did when in opposition. They had many years to get across the economy, to get across COVID policy, to get across jobs policy. But it seems all they did in opposition was talk to the trade unions, and now, instead of coming out and being honest that the trade union movement is behind pretty much everything they're now putting forward, are finding many ways—plans for a plan. Be honest and just come out and say, 'This is what the trade union movement wants.' In fact, why not put Sally McManus on the frontbench? That would be more honest than the approach they're now taking to deal with the cost-of-living problems, industrial relations, and many other things.

In saying that leopards don't change their spots, I want to read out something, and colleagues might like to guess who said it and when in relation to the Labor Party:

Our opponents have been destructive critics. They have politically welcomed every difficulty. They have prophesied, and hoped for, disaster. Depression, mass unemployment, financial collapse; these have been their gloomy political stock-in-trade. All their prophecies have failed. Instead of depression, we have a record prosperity. Instead of unemployment, we have a record level of employment at high wages. Instead of financial collapse, we have the highest national income on record, large exports and international reserves, splendid credit, buoyant loan markets, stabilised prices.

Today, bitterly frustrated by the failure of their past prophecies, they are struggling to raise false issues and new prejudices, and to make glittering promises distract attention from real and solid achievements.

Colleagues, this was Sir Robert Menzies in 1954 talking about the Labor Party. Had I not just told you that, you would have thought it is actually right here today in this chamber from those who occupy the government benches. As I said—newsflash, government is hard. You have to make thousands and thousands of ministerial decisions every day based on the best evidence before you. You don't have a plan for a plan, you don't hold summits and wait three months to do things that you could have done on day one of coming into government. Instead, you have reviewed, talked, held those summits so you can get through trade union ideas under the guise of consulting with very few Western Australians, may I say.

Let me tell you what good government actually looks like. Despite all of the rhetoric from those opposite now doing triple-somersaults to try to reinvent the past, the coalition government responded quickly with a targeted cost-of-living package to ease pressure on household budgets, when they needed it most under our government. We provided lower taxes to around 10 million Australians, who will receive tax relief of $1,500 now—today—when lodging their tax returns. This includes the $420 cost-of-living tax offset for low- and middle-income earners. We delivered a $250 cost-of-living payment to nearly six million pensioners, welfare recipients, veterans and eligible concession cardholders. We cut the fuel excise in half for six months, saving a family with two cars who filled up once a week at least $30 a week. We reduced the price of medicine and health costs for thousands and thousands of medicines. That is what good government looks like. For those opposite, at some point you are going to have to start making decisions, being honest about what you're doing and govern in this nation's best interest.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I thought when we came back this week that those opposite might have actually taken heed of what happened here in this parliament last Thursday and Friday with the national Jobs and Skills Summit. It obviously hurts them greatly to see business, unions, NGOs and people who are community leaders coming together in the same room, talking about the issues that matter to the Australian people. Of course, those opposite don't want to see things change, because what they like is to see chaos and division within the community. They don't like to see the business community and small businesses talking and working with the union movement, because that isn't part of their script.

The issues have been made known. We went to the election saying that we would have a jobs summit, because it's not just this federal government's responsibility to come up with all the ideas and solutions going forward. There needs to be a collective acknowledgement of what the issues are and whether or not we've got the answers moving forward. One of the things that the previous government, those in opposition, had as part of their economic plan was to have stagnant wages, so they said time and time again that that was part of their plan. The reality is stagnant wages do have an impact on small businesses, which is what this question that was asked went to, small businesses and the cost of living. Yes, there is higher inflation, and gee, golly, gosh we've been in government now for about 112 days and we're supposed to forget the last nine years of the Turnbull, Abbott and Morrison governments.

There are real issues with standards of living in this country, but we have to address those in a collective sense. We need to ensure that there are good, secure jobs. To do that, we've already invested in and outlined our plan for child care. We want more women back in the workforce. We want to make sure that there is proper negotiation and flexibility between the business community and unions in negotiating the ways forward. These are all sensible ideas, but what do we see from those opposite? Back to the old scare campaign, 'Heavens above, if you have business and unions working together, no, what we're going to have is strikes.' What a lot of nonsense. It's time to move into the 21st century.

We want to see more sustainable investment. We want to create a sustainable economy that sees good, well-paid jobs. We want people to have the skills that are going to be needed for the future. As part of that, we will have to change and open up migration so we can bring skills in, because even with the investment we're making in TAFE we're not going to be able to fill the jobs that are now there and need to be filled. We've got a new problem, and it is a good problem to have: we've got more jobs than we have workers. We're not going to be able to address that without bringing new skilled migrants into this country, who will not only fill those positions but add richness to our culture and to our economy.

But all we see from those opposite is criticism. It's like they can't just say, 'Gee, this government is getting on with it.' We didn't see Mr Dutton at the summit, but we did see Mr Littleproud, who was there and making a contribution. Maybe he should resign from his party and join the Liberal Party so that they have a leader! Mr 22 Per Cent, better known as Mr Dutton, as of this morning's newspaper, has a lot to learn. People in the electorates are sick and tired of the division. They want governments, oppositions and other parties to work together to come up with a stronger economy, more secure jobs, more women back in the workforce, and proper wages for people in aged care and those who are looking after our youngest minds in early childhood education. We need more people investing in those jobs and we need to make sure they're remunerated accordingly.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say, in taking note of answers given today, that in my experience it hasn't been a successful strategy for politicians to quote opinion polls, but we wish you well with that approach. The point is that the government, which won the election with very few policies, has gone in search of some policies, and it has tried to do that by talking to a series of vested interests.

When I call this government a government for vested interests it is a serious point that I'm trying to make. One of the consequences of being a government for vested interests is that, while there could be some good ideas and maybe some bad ones, there are good ideas that are not considered, because the funnel is so small. I think there have been some missed opportunities over the last seven days or so.

I was surprised that there wasn't more consideration given to a small business award: a simple set of conditions that could cut across the complexity that many small businesses face in our economy. I was surprised to hear the Labor Party talk about their desire to see higher wages but not consider the fact that compulsory superannuation increases eat 80 per cent of the projected wages growth in the budget. I was surprised that people didn't consider that maybe we could use that superannuation system to deliver wages growth now. I was surprised that the super funds, with one of the strongest vested interests in this government, came to Canberra asking for another tax cut, asking for a scheme which would allow them to own all the houses, to become the landlords in Australia, where Australians would become serfs to the super funds and be forced into renting for life. Those are the things that we could have had a discussion about, but instead we have seen a series of policy initiatives designed to fill the coffers of the closest friends of the government.

Of course, we have already seen in the last seven days the Attorney-General announcing that he would abolish the regulation that we put in place for class action lawyers, where people who are seeking redress through the courts system often find that the awards that they are provided by the courts are eaten up by bloodsucking class action lawyers. We also find that the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Stephen Jones, on Friday afternoon made a regulation to conceal $30 million in payments from super funds to unions that are due by 2030—$30 million per annum. This is on top of the $130 million or $140 million over the past 10 years that has already been paid from the super funds into the unions. So Minister Jones has delivered that.

Then of course you see Mr Jones's other initiative, which is to review the best financial interest duty that super funds face, thanks to a coalition reform. Why would you want to review a best financial interest duty? Only because you want to permit payments which are banned today. Then, of course, the other matter before the Senate later tonight, is the matter of the abolition of the Building and Construction Commission, which of course has been a successful institution that has upheld the rule of law on construction sites, which of course is a very large industry—almost 10 per cent of GDP. So, again, you see pay-off for the CFMMEU.

So, between the class action lawyers, the super funds and the unions, you have seen the government try to deliver their agenda in their first 100 days. We are only 100 days into this government, and eventually their vested interests will run out of ideas that are in the top drawer. The big risk for the country is: what is in the second drawer? It could be even crazier ideas. My good friend the member for Whitlam has already talked about 15 per cent super. That would be a really good way to crash wages. But I'm sure that there are many, many other ideas that will come from the vested interests and be facilitated by this government in the near future.

Question agreed to.