Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators during questions without notice today.

In moving that motion, I want to start with the question that I asked, and that was in relation to the exploding industry of illegal tobacco in this country that has happened on this government's watch. It didn't just happen overnight. It's happened over the last three or more years now while this government has been on the Treasury benches, and it has had devastating impacts on the lives of many Australians. Indeed, the government itself is not immune to the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade, losing billions of dollars of revenue in excise collections every year as a result of their hands off approach when it comes to dealing with this insidious issue.

There's not an Australian—particularly in major population centres like Melbourne or Sydney, Brisbane perhaps, or even, indeed, some of the regional communities around Australia—that cannot see firsthand the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade. I understand that every day in this country these cartel operations, these crime gangs, are making a $13 million profit off illegal tobacco, and this government has sat on its hands for the last 3½ years. They talk about hundreds of millions of dollars being ploughed into enforcement initiatives. The problem is that it is not stopping the problem. It is not stemming the flow of these terrible products coming into our country, be they illegal cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco or illegal vape products. Of course, we know that these products can be laced with some of the most harmful chemicals with terrible consequences for human health with no approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Again this government and the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs say, 'Virtually nothing to see here.' This is a terrible indictment on government that should have, in its top few priorities, a desire to keep this nation secure and a desire to keep Australians safe, healthy and protected from, as I said before, the insidiousness and harms associated with the illicit tobacco trade.

I was in Melbourne, just a couple of weeks ago, and I was able to stand and do a media conference with the Victorian shadow Attorney-General, Mr James Newbury, in a vacant tenancy in the suburb of Prahran. As we know, and as we've seen night after night on television news, in places like Melbourne—and Sydney, as I mentioned before—there are countless firebombings, ram raids, theft activity and physical assaults which are all associated with the illegal tobacco trade.

The tenancy we stood in was not a large premises, but it was one that had an insurance cost, I'm told, of roughly $2,000 per annum for the landlord to pay in order to have insurance protection around that tenancy. In a 12-month period, that insurance bill went up from $2,000 per annum to $200,000 per annum because a tenant in that shop area was a legitimate tobacconist. They are someone who was actually paying their GST bills and ensuring that excise was collected on the products that they sold. They dealt in legitimate products, but, because they were doing so, they presented a risk that insurance companies weren't willing to stomach. Therefore, they saw insurance bills for that particular business go up from $2,000 to $200,000 in a one-year period. That is one of the many consequences flowing from this industry. We know of firebombings of people's houses. Representatives of crime gangs have had their homes targeted by rival crime gangs. There have been firebombings gone wrong. We know of fatalities related to that.

Again, this government seem to say: 'It's all under control. We're doing everything we can.' The fact of the matter is you are not. The impact from the number of products, and the weight of those products, coming into this country is growing. It's exploding, and there is nothing that these crime gangs are seeing this government do that will in any way deter them from doing what it is they do. The government is losing billions of dollars every year—$3.3 billion last year alone—and billions of dollars over the forward estimates. Humans' lives are at risk.

Our country's security and safety is very much under threat because of, as I say, a hands-off approach. This is a government that's happy to set up a taskforce here, a group there and a committee here, but it does nothing meaningful or tangible about this. It's an indictment on this government. It does indicate to me that their priorities are wrong. It is the kind of thing that needs urgent action in collaboration with state and territory authorities, intelligence authorities and law enforcement agencies more broadly. But it is an indictment on this government nonetheless. (Time expired)

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could have knocked me over with a feather today as I watched the coalition come into this place and talk about real wage growth. The cheek of it! When Labor came to office, real wages and income were going backwards under the coalition. Real wages fell for five consecutive quarters under the coalition. That's their record. On our watch, real wages and living standards are growing again under Labor. Let's have a look at who's received a pay rise under Labor: aged-care workers, childcare workers and award workers—these are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia and all have received a pay rise under this government. Four hundred thousand aged-care workers have benefited from wage increases, in addition to a 15 per cent award wage increase paid directly to aged-care workers in 2023. Childcare and early educators are receiving a 15 per cent pay rise funded by the government. That's a pay rise of at least $155 per week. Three million Australians who are award workers received a 3.5 per cent pay rise from 1 July. That's a real wage increase above inflation.

What did this government do about increases for working people? We put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing for an economically sustainable pay rise for supermarket workers, for distribution workers, for hospitality workers, for retail workers—the list goes on. Under the former coalition government, what did they do? Their government's submission to the Fair Work Commission voted against a substantive pay rise, and they did that in 2016, 2017 and 2019.

Let's talk about what also puts more money in the back pockets of workers, and that's tax cuts. Delivering tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer is the record of this government. We delivered one last year and we'll deliver one next year and another the year after. We've also delivered an instant $1,000 tax deduction. Labor's tax cuts will help 14 million Australian taxpayers. The coalition voted against that. They tried to stand between working people and a tax cut. Imagine coming into this place and lecturing the Labor Party on wages growth while voting against tax cuts.

I'll now move to Senator Cadell's question about rural road limits and drawing a very long bow towards net zero. I'm not sure where Senator Cadell is getting this stuff from—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From your own documents.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will come to that in a minute. 'Your policy; your document'—it sounds a bit like more fake news from the CNN, the 'Canavan News Network', over there, pumping out wall-to-wall fake news.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Let's talk about that for a minute. Every time the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, tries to get their show back on the road, to get their energy policy back on the road, the Nationals go off like a malfunctioning smoke alarm, leaving the Liberals running for cover. What do we get? A painful loud noise that everyone wants to be quiet.

Let me talk a little bit about those speed limits for a moment. The previous coalition government—in fact, the then deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack—made a commitment to review default speed limits as part of the Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020. In fact, it was priority action No. 1 in your plan to review speed limits in high-risk regional roads. Senator Canavan's government—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mulholland, can we try to address our remarks through the chair, not directly to another senator.

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noted. Strangely, after introducing the idea, we now see in here today that the Nationals have flip-flopped and are now actively campaigning against their own policy.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one?

Corinne Mulholland (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's true! I've only got 20 seconds. I can't go through them all. What we have at the moment is public consultation open under that process that started under the National Party. Again, they're now crab-walking away from their own policy.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous senator asked where the coalition got the idea that the government is considering reducing speed limits based on the potential reduction in carbon emissions that would follow. We got that from the government's own documents. The government released a consultation regulatory impact assessment in September this year. It was a document released by the department of infrastructure. I have it here in front of me. Obviously, their minister doesn't seem to have read it, seemingly neither has the senator who just spoke, so I'm happy to read some extracts to the Senate so we can all be well informed here.

The regulatory impact assessment has a section saying 'cost-of-carbon benefit' that says—the whole section is about three or four pages. The document says:

Consumption of petrol and diesel in petrol and diesel vehicles produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

It goes on to say:

There is evidence to suggest that increased speed can increase fuel consumption and therefore increase CO2 emissions.

Later on in the document, it says:

The value of GHG emissions—

greenhouse gas emissions, that is—

therefore, is not internalised in the market, which means that individuals do not make decisions based on the overall impact. This is a classic market failure, making the value of emissions difficult to estimate accurately.

Despite that difficulty, the document goes on to try to do that and says:

This RIA—

regulatory impact assessment—

will use the AER's—

Australian Energy Regulator's—

Cost of carbon estimates as shown in figure 11 below. The total dollar value of the reduction in emissions is therefore the total tonnes of abated carbon per year multiplied by the social cost of carbon in that year.

If you go to that figure 11, it has a range of carbon value estimates that start at $79 a tonne—three times the size of Julia Gillard's carbon tax—and goes to a total of $179 a tonne by the year 2036.

The question here is not whether or not a government should consider reducing the speed to save Australian lives. The question is: should a government decide on the speed limit to reach a reduction in carbon emissions? That's the question. The government's own document says, 'We will make this decision on whether to reduce speed limits not just on what it means for safety'—it's very important; I agree with that—'we will also consider whether or not reducing emissions justifies making Australians go slower on their own roads.' That is in their own documents. It is what they put out publicly. They have whole armies of bureaucrats in this town estimating these costs of carbon. It's wasting a huge amount of money. They're not doing much for our economy, for our productivity or to help Australians survive and pay their bills, but they are imposing new imposts and new means and reasons to tell Australians what to do, based on rules in Canberra. It's in their own documents.

What is worse here, as someone in the National Party, is that this document relates only to unsealed roads and roads without speed limits. Obviously almost all of those are outside our major cities, so the question that has to be asked, which my colleague Senator Cadell did today, is: why is the government considering the benefits—they say 'benefits'—of reducing emissions for slower speed limits only in rural areas? They're imposing this $179 carbon tax on driving in rural areas. Why is that happening? Why would your own government be making a decision about the safety of roads, only in country areas, based on, 'That might create a few emissions'?

Obviously it is in country areas that we often have to drive quite large vehicles. It can be quite dangerous on some of these roads, so you probably don't want to be driving a Ford Focus down by Mistake Creek on the Clermont-Alpha Road. I wouldn't advise that. You probably would want to be in, if you can, a Toyota LandCruiser. That would be the ideal vehicle. It's heavy, and you'll probably have a bull bar on the front of it to keep you and your family safe—and that's heavy; that'll create more emissions. And the government is using that data from those larger cars, which necessarily do create more emissions—and cost us more money, too, to drive—to justify making us go slower.

This shows that this whole net zero idea is about control. It is about controlling your life, because the only way the government can meet net zero is if it tells you what car you can drive, how fast you can drive, what food you can eat, what energy you can use and what clothes you can wear. Everything you do has to be controlled to reach net zero emissions. I don't think the Australian people want to be told what to do by a bunch of rich, self-entitled politicians, investors and bankers. I think they want their freedom back. I think they want their standard of living back, and most of all we want our jobs back.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a delight it is to see the opposition return to their economic base and to come into this place in question time and actually ask some decent questions about the economy, because that's been lacking and absent in the 48th Parliament up until today. So congratulations, folks. You've come in here and actually put some decent questions.

But you've missed out some of the very key facts. When the Albanese Labor government came to office, the opposition had absolutely no economic credibility. At the last election, the Liberal Party actually ran on promising higher income taxes for every Australian, more savage cuts—

Cuts, cuts, cuts—Senator Henderson. That's exactly what the opposition went out and told the Australian people.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, through the chair, please. Senator Henderson, interjections are always disorderly.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She loves a debate with me, Deputy President.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, through the chair, Senator Cox.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, I'd be happy to invite Senator Henderson up for a cup of tea and a chat sometime.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, please stop interjecting. Senator Cox, please direct your speech through the chair.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President, and you know, as a proud Western Australian, that economics is so important to us in Western Australia; it's a fine state.

But our government have worked particularly hard. There were two large Liberal deficits that they left behind, and Labor turned those into surpluses. We got our debt down to $188 billion in 2024-25, after what they left us. We turned around the rabble that was left behind by the opposition. The average real payment growth has been limited to 1.7 per cent per year and around 3.2 percent over a 30-year average. Our finance team and our treasury have done amazing work to do that.

I know that it pains the opposition to sit here and listen to that, given what's currently going on within the Liberal-National coalition. It was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy to keep wages lower in this country, but we over here on this side of the chamber, the Albanese Labor government, are absolutely committed to real wage growth. Our government is a government that cares about real wage growth for Australians, and we want to make sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. That is what we are about. We are a mature party of government; that's exactly what the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher, said during question time. And unity is at the heart of that. We see over there the different policies coming in and out of the different folk that are putting their hands up for leadership positions. But we care about what Australians want: real wage growth. And that's at the heart of what we are doing in our economic work across our treasury and finance areas.

Let me go to some of the other conversations. I think Senator Mulholland spoke about the speed limits on roads. They're important for our regional centres, and it's important they're maintained. Our wonderful repping minister, Minister McCarthy, articulated the investment that we, the Albanese Labor government, are making. So I won't do that one to death during this time, in taking note.

I'll also talk a little bit about Minister Watt's contribution and his responses to questions from Senator Duniam in relation to illegal tobacco and the $256 million investment that we are making to ensure that we are tackling this problem. I'm a member of the law enforcement committee, chaired by the wonderful Senator Polley from Tasmania. We are working with our state and territory partners, Border Force, law enforcement agencies and other agencies—more importantly—to ensure that this is front of mind in our communities.

I want to finish with something that is absolutely critical. As Minister Watt responded today—what a landmark day for the environment here in Australia. It is the work of Minister Watt, and I want to congratulate him for his leadership and congratulate those over in the House. We've heard the bells going all day, with the voting that's been going on. This is important—get behind EPBC reform!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to start a little bit off topic, and I hope you indulge me. I just noted that Senator Cox referenced her great state of WA. I want to note that my great state of New South Wales contributes 30.7 per cent of Australia's GDP, and Western Australia contributes only about 17 per cent.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're going to create a row there, Maria!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I do digress—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might have to call you to order!

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for your indulgence. We were talking about the Reserve Bank. Senator Paterson asked questions to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, about the comments of the RBA in relation to government spending. It is a fact that the RBA has made numerous comments in relation to the spending of this government.

Over the past term, the Albanese Labor government has pointed to the fact that their inflationary problems are the fault of the Opposition, even though the RBA has pointed to government spending and the Treasury has pointed to government spending.

Now, today, we have Senator Gallagher telling us that it's actually because of big global pressures. It's never the fault of the Albanese Labor government! Whatever happens in this country seems to be somebody else's fault—usually ours, even though we are in opposition. We do appreciate the sentiment of being able to control what the government does, from opposition, but that's not quite the fact.

Seriously though, this is a significant problem for Australians. Inflation in our country has been described as sticky. It's been described as persistent. Call it what you will, but the reality is that inflation is causing significant cost-of-living pressures for Australians. I'll talk about housing in particular. Those opposite, when you hear them speak, will often reference the three rate cuts under this government, but what they will not reference is the 12 rate rises under this government that preceded the three rate cuts. According to my very basic maths, there were a lot more rate increases than rate reductions. Maybe we should have a think about that, because that differentiation is still costing Australians about $1,800 a month more on their mortgage repayments. That's a lot of money. We're not just talking about mortgage repayments. If we talk about rents, there's a significant price increase there too.

You've heard me talk many times in this chamber about the plight of young Australians who want to own their own home. I first spoke about it in my maiden speech. The reality is—and I'll say it again—no matter how hard young Australians work they fear that they'll never own their own home. How can they, when the cost of everything has gone through the roof under this government? Mr O'Brien in the other place referred to it as 'Jimflation', but the inflation that is a product of this government, that is homegrown, has put so much cost pressure on every Australian. Can you imagine what it's like to be a young Australian paying extraordinary rents and trying to save for your first home? Think about that. You're paying rents that have gone through the roof. You're trying to save for your own home. Everything, from your groceries, your electricity and your insurance to your petrol, is more expensive, and those opposite are trying to pretend that there's nothing to see here. Well, there's plenty to see here, and it is a result of their actions and inactions.

Treasury has said that this is the biggest-spending government since the Second World War. That's a problem, and young Australians are paying for it today with their inability to save and get into housing, to buy and own their own home—because that's what we want. We want young Australians to buy their own home and not be subject to a lifetime of renting under the build-to-rent proposals of the government. But the government don't seem to care. They are focused on doing what it is that they want to do, because of their vested interests in big super, the CFMEU and the impacts that they have on the cost of housing in our country. It is a real shame that they will not acknowledge the impacts that their reckless spending has on Australians, which they are ignoring. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.