Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I move to take note particularly of those around the inflation figures that were announced today. It is quite extraordinary how far inflation has ticked up considering that, just a few months ago, Jim Chalmers was telling us all that the inflation genie was back in the bottle, that he had tamed the dragon, that we didn't need to worry anymore, that we could expect decreases in the prices of houses, that we'd see interest rates come down, that everything was fine and that it was all due to his exceptional economic management. Well, how quickly the story has changed!

You would recall, Deputy President, that at the beginning of this Labor government, when inflation was high, Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, said that it was always somebody else's fault. First of all, he blamed the coalition. Then he said it was Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine and that was why they had to push up gas prices. Then he said that it was Hamas's fault and that the troubles that were going on in the Middle East were causing the rise in energy prices and pushing up inflation around the world. Then he said: 'Well, now that President Trump has been elected, that's geopolitical instability and that's causing some problems with inflation. That's just something we have to deal with.' And then he came back to the coalition and said it was our fault all over again.

At no point in time has the Treasurer even once taken responsibility for the persistent inflation in this country, even though our inflation was higher and lasted longer than in so many other advanced economies, who managed to tame their inflation through fiscal responsibility. They saw the government spending wind back in response to high inflation around the world. They said: 'No, we'll do our bit. We'll do some of the heavy lifting. We won't turn it all over to monetary policy.' But that's not what this government did. In fact, they said: 'This is really Michele Bullock's responsibility. We'll just turn it over to her.' So the poor RBA had to pull on the only lever they had—they only have one lever, and that's monetary policy—and they pulled it 12 times. That's why we saw interest rates go up 12 times in the last parliament—12 times! It has since come back down three times, but now it has stalled again.

There are so many Australians out there—do you remember the days, Deputy President Brockman, when Australians really didn't give two hoots what the inflation data was doing? They really didn't even look too hard at interest rates. But now you've got families that are hanging out watching economic data roll in, wondering how it's going to affect them. And you can understand why, because their living standards have gone backwards under this government. Why have they gone backwards? Because inflation has been too high for too long. It has eaten away at their wages. It means that they can buy less with the money that they have. Even if their wages have gone up, they haven't gone up enough to keep up with the rising cost of living. And it's that cost of living that has caused so much damage in just the last three years alone—that persistent rising cost of living. It's a problem which, according to Jim Chalmers, has apparently been solved.

What is one of the causes of this persistent inflation? It's not just government spending although, let's face it, that is important—even Michele Bullock has pointed that out. It is the rising cost of energy—those increasing energy bills, those energy bills that you all know have gone up by 40 per cent in the last three years. And why have they gone up 40 per cent? Because of this government's ideological obsession with reaching its renewable energy targets and reducing emissions well beyond any comparable country by 2030, and, indeed, 2035 as well. That ideological obsession has seen our energy prices rise, not lower.

Only the coalition has proposed an alternative, which is to reduce emissions while delivering affordable and reliable energy, shoring up the grid—a technology neutral approach that will not see a one-eyed single technology of renewable energy delivering higher energy prices, which of course is taking us all backwards. That renewable energy obsession is what has seen companies go out of business, like Tomago, like Incitec Pivot, like Qenos plastics, like Oceania Glass in my home state of Victoria. These companies, these manufacturing businesses, are going out of business because of this government's approach to managing the economy, to managing the energy grid and to managing inflation.

We want to see the pie grow. Economic management is not something that happens by accident; it happens by design. But this government has done the exact opposite, and it is Australians who are paying the price.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Inflation is certainly much lower than what we inherited when we came to office. As you heard the finance minister say, the figures are much higher than we would like to see. But when we came to office, inflation was at 6.1 per cent and rising; now it has a three in front of it instead. And while inflation was flat in the month of October, it did tick up in annual terms, in part due to temporary factors such as the timing of state energy rebates and volatile items, such as travel prices. Underlying inflation was almost five per cent when we came to office; now it is lower than that.

The progress we have made on inflation has given the RBA confidence to cut interest rates three times this year. We've been able to get inflation down while keeping unemployment low, and the economy has continued to grow—and this is not the case around the world. And while we have made good progress on the economy together, we know that the job is not done and we know that people are under pressure. But today we heard questions that labelled some of our spending as a government as out of control. I'd like to go through a couple of the things that our government has prioritised spending money on and whether Australians might consider the spending to be out of control.

First, we've got tax cuts for every single working Australian, so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. Energy bill relief? I reckon that's a great thing for lots of Australian households and businesses. We've got record investment in Medicare, so people will be able to see a GP for free, with over 1,000 GP clinics signing up to be able to fully bulk-bill their patients. That's a great thing for everyday Australians. I don't know; maybe that's out-of-control spending for those opposite since they don't love Medicare like Labor does. Cutting the cost of medicines? We've already cut it once. Medicines are down to $32 now, and from 1 January they're going to be $25 for every Australian. I reckon Australians will be happy to spend $25 for their PBS script. I don't consider that to be out-of-control spending, because Australians should not have to choose between looking after their health and putting food on the table. That is a very good thing for Australians. Indexing the pension? I would think lots of pensioners would really like that.

I'm wondering what those opposite might take off their list. Increasing the single parenting payment? Maybe those opposite might go after that. A pay rise for aged-care workers—people taking care of older Australians? Those opposite don't really like highly feminised industries. They might go after that. A pay rise for early-years educators, maybe? Is that out-of-control spending, or would you like the people who look after our young people to be paid fairly? I like that and I reckon lots of parents like that, too. Support for apprentices so we've got the people and the tools we need to build the homes Australia needs? I reckon that's a great thing for the country, too. Is that on their chopping block? Paid prac for nurses, teachers, midwives and social workers? It's a great thing for people who are studying those professions to be paid for their pracs. I think that's a great thing. Increasing the number of weeks for Commonwealth paid parental leave? I reckon there are lots of parents around the country who would love that extra time at home with their families and with their new little bub. I reckon that's a great thing. Are those opposite going to cut it back to what it was? I reckon that's a good place for the government to prioritise putting money.

Maybe those opposite don't like paying superannuation on paid parental leave, because they really don't like superannuation. I don't know about them, but I like to see superannuation being paid on paid parental leave. We already know that women retire with less than men, so I think it's a great thing that we're paying super on Commonwealth paid parental leave. I would like those opposite to stand up and tell me which of the measures the government has prioritised spending money on—the ones they call out-of-control spending—that they're going to put on their cutting block, because I think that Australians support each of the things here that we've spent money on. (Time expired)

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion moved referred to all answers to coalition questions, but I intend to focus on the answer to the question by Senator McKenzie to Senator Ayres and the one from Senator McDonald to Senator Ayres. The question asked by Senator McKenzie related to subsequent potential costs for negotiating the next round of COP. Can I put on record that I fully support the government's bid to bring COP to Adelaide. I think Adelaide would have been a magnificent setting. I don't think I can be accused of any bias in relation to that! The minister said that it's in the interests of all Australians for the climate negotiations to be successful. I agree with the minister on that proposition. He also said it's important that all Australians be represented—I actually agree with him—and also Australian farmers. They're especially important, and I agree with him on that one. I'm giving him high marks for the answer.

A government senator: You're on the wrong side of the chamber!

Maybe it's the wrong topic! Importantly, the minister raised the importance of the Pacific. I fully endorse any initiative to facilitate the voices of the Pacific into climate negotiations. I have spent much of my life building relationships with the Pacific. They are small nations. We are well resourced. It is important, from an ethical and moral perspective, that we assist our neighbours in every way.

He did have a slight crack at Mr Dutton, but Mr Dutton held to the net zero target. We must give credit where credit is due. It's only recent events that have taken us off the narrow path and onto the broader path. The minister did say that costs will be determined in the usual way, and I imagine that at this stage they are being budgeted for.

Let me come to the question by Senator McDonald, which was trying to tie electricity prices to net zero. I have a quote here—we all know I like my quotes—from Mr Matt Keane, chair of the Climate Change Authority. This is one that I go to regularly:

As an emissions-intensive, advanced economy that is extremely vulnerable to climate change, Australia has a clear national interest and responsibility to signal that we are willing and able to support the greatest possible emissions reductions.

There are various analyses and forecasts in relation to electricity prices, and it is complicated. The minister did imply—somewhat unkindly—that there was insufficient investment prior to the ascendancy of the Labor Party to the treasury benches. But there are more sensible analyses, and I have one here, from the Clean Energy Council:

Our modelling confirms that continuing to deploy renewable energy will keep wholesale electricity prices as low as possible. Clean energy not only works for Australia but it's the cheapest path forward for our electricity bills.

I agree with that. Electricity prices are often reliant on the gas price. They are affected by capital investment over long periods of time. So I don't necessarily believe in the nexus. I don't wish to inflate the ego of Senator Ayres, but I did take his point. This is a good day for Senator Ayres. But he also mentioned the Australian Industry Group. There are some conflicting and contrarian views in relation to that. My view, and I've expressed this publicly and in this place, is that unless you have a long-term target you cannot expect capital investment in infrastructure to deliver to our energy needs, and you can't do it on a rolling five-year time frame.

I suppose I come to this place with a disability, having worked in the financial markets. Billions of dollars will need to be spent. We are transitioning our economy. It will be difficult. But, unless we do so, we will not be able to reduce our emissions sufficiently. One thing that's left out by those who assert that we shouldn't have a net zero target is pollution and emissions, and they should be included.

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For once it's actually nice to get a question from the opposition on the economy. Back when we came to office, inflation was rising rapidly. It's now much lower. It was at 6.1 per cent and climbing. Let's talk about the inflation challenge that we inherited from those opposite. We know it's hard to hear the facts sometimes, but the fact is that Labor is better at economic management. We've repaired the budget, we're working hard to get inflation back under control and we turned two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses.

It was quite funny to hear Senator Hume just a moment ago going on and on about inflation and Labor's management of the economy and what's been happening these past three years. She must have missed the report released just today by the Australian Election Study showing that voters prefer Labor's offering on economic management, taxation, housing affordability and the cost of living—clearly showing that the majority of Australians see Labor as the natural party of government.

We inherited the economic equivalent of a burnt-out Holden, and those opposite are somehow shocked that it didn't turn into a Tesla overnight. They want us to fix more than a decade of neglect instantly—

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

Seriously? Okay.

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but they won't let us pass the bills required to do it. It's like yelling at the chef while stealing the ingredients.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, it is inappropriate for comments to be made by the Deputy President, from the chair, about a senator's contribution.

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

I agree. I forgot myself. I apologise to the senator, I apologise to the Senate and I apologise to you.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Charlotte Walker (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst we have made good progress on the economy, we know that progress is still to be made. The job is not done. People are still under stress. Real annual wages have grown for eight consecutive quarters, the longest run in almost a decade. They went backwards for five quarters before we came into office. If those opposite had won the election, the cost of living would have been on the chopping block. It's ironic that those opposite are now interested in energy and climate policy. I heard they tried energy policy a few times in the last term—over 20 times, apparently. They're not doing any better currently. Theirs is a truly divided party room. They can't even agree on whether climate change is real or not. They are the definition of out of touch. If they spent as much time talking to Australians as they did fighting with each other, maybe they'd realise that the majority of Australians do believe in climate change and want a net zero target. The coalition dropping net zero isn't a policy shift; it's an identity crisis. They've now got fewer long-term commitments than most of my exes. If the coalition think scrapping net zero is a vision, I'd hate to see what they call an actual plan. The rest of the world is moving forward, and they're doing doughnuts in the car park.

Those on this side of the aisle are actually trying to assist with energy bill relief. We put in place the Energy Price Relief Plan. The coalition voted against it, then they complained bills were too high. That's like refusing sunscreen and then blaming the sun. This government actually has your back. Why don't those opposite want to take accountability for their actions? Twenty-four of the nation's 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within a decade, all under those opposite. The stats do not lie. You were the ones that went to the last election proposing to increase taxes—bigger deficits, higher taxes and bigger debt, all because they were caught up in their weird nuclear fantasy. The lights may have gone out during question time, but, not to worry, we had the luminescent egos of those opposite.

Just today, I met with the Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Network, and we discussed climate change at length and how it'll impact the Indo-Pacific region, because, after all, we share an ocean and we share a future. We care about the future, the next generation and the future of our Pacific neighbours. That's why Labor is committed to what we're doing to ensure that we tackle climate change. We know that the coalition doesn't care about our Pacific neighbours. This was summarised 10 years ago by the former member for Dickson Peter Dutton, who was caught laughing on a hot mic when he said, 'Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door.'

Those opposite are worried about the cost of COP. What we are worried about is the consequences after a decade of inaction. The Albanese Labor government will go to COP next year with true credibility. The coalition rocked up for years as the bad cop—with no evidence, no plan and no intention of solving the case. Whilst those opposite continue to blame us for inflation and continue with their climate denialism, we are committed to delivering change and assisting with cost-of-living relief.

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

Thank you, Senator Walker. Once again, I do apologise for that most disorderly interjection.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to coalition questions but particularly in relation to the energy disaster that we have in this country. I know Senator Walker is a new senator, and I give Senator Walker a lot of leeway. But, when Senator Walker reads Labor Party talking points that seek to monumentally mischaracterise our position, that's disgusting. There's no climate denialism. We have made it very clear that we have a responsibility to reduce emissions, to play our role. So, Senator Walker, before you make those claims again, please check your facts. But we will not stand by and watch this government send our country backwards—because that is what is happening. Senator Walker may not be aware, and other ministers seek to misrepresent or conveniently overlook the facts in this chamber, but today the Australian Bureau of Statistics has confirmed that electricity prices have risen 37.1 per cent in 12 months. That is horrific! It's fine to senators opposite if they're earning $200,000-plus a year; maybe it doesn't matter. But I can tell you it matters to a lot of people, including a lot of Victorians, who literally have to make a choice between eating and heating. What is happening in this country is a disgrace.

As for the part-time Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen, spending more time with his ideological obsession for Labor's renewables-only madness, he should go to Turkiye and stay there. I am of the view that the Prime Minister needs to replace this hapless energy minister. He is the emperor with no clothes, on his horse, riding down the street, saying, 'There's nothing to see here,' but Australians can see the bare facts. Our energy security is going backward. Power and gas prices are skyrocketing. We are being denied base load power, and the government has just signed up to an international agreement which commits this country to phase out coal and gas. We are blessed with the resources of our country—coal, gas, critical minerals, uranium—and now this government has recklessly signed an agreement which puts at risk our second and third biggest exports, coal and gas, valued at $150 billion a year. And, yes, the lights did go dim in this chamber due to a power outage. This is exactly what we are facing as a nation: brownouts and blackouts as far as the eye can see under this government's renewables-only policies, which are causing so much environmental and economic harm to our country.

So I say the decision to abolish zero is not only responsible; it's the right thing to do for our country. What this government is doing is denying Australians base load power.

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

Wrong side of history, Senator Henderson.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Grogan in the interjection doesn't seem to appreciate that these sorts of skyrocketing prices really make an impact. There are plenty of households that literally cannot afford to connect the electricity and gas—certainly in Victoria.

And of course today we learned that inflation is up again. It's now 3.8 per cent, with softening economic growth and no hope, according to the experts, of any downward trajectory in inflation until 2027. That includes interest rates, which are causing such enormous pressure not just on mortgage holders but on everyone paying skyrocketing rents. So these policies are a disaster for our nation, and it is time the energy minister got off his horse and the Prime Minister started to take a reality check and look at the damage they are causing our country. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.