1 month ago
Key events Show key events only Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Jim Chalmers enjoyed saying these words a little too much in his last dixer answer:
This side of the House has a plan for a future made in Australia. That side of the House is an embarrassing shambles, divisive and divided in the third year of a 3-year term, and no view on production tax credits, still no costed policies and no economic credibility.
Labor says status quo regarding gambling advertising ‘untenable’ but does not commit to full ban
Independent MP Sophie Scamps asks:
Australia has been a world leader in protecting our young people from smoking and vaping. There is irrefutable evidence that gambling is also a serious public health threat, especially for our young people through suicide, addiction and family breakdown. The public health community is united in their call for a complete ban on gambling advertising. As the health minister, will you heed the public health community’s call and support a full ban on gambling advertising to protect our children from being preyed upon for profit?
Mark Butler:
The prime minister outlined a range of those measures today in response yesterday to a question by the member for Goldstein. They are very significant.
And in two years they’re way more than any government Labor or Liberal, frankly, that is ever delivered in this parliament before it.
I won’t go through all of them. They’re very significant. I want to refer to bet stop, which I think is the most significant harm reduction measure ever initiated in this parliament.
As the prime minister also said yesterday, getting to the heart of the member’s question around advertising, the prime minister did say the status quo regarding the saturation of gambling advertising, particularly where children are exposed to it, is untenable.
He said the government is working through those issues and that work is led very appropriately by the minister for communications and the minister for social services.
Albanese says aiming for bipartisanship on First Nations issues is ‘focus of my government’
Anthony Albanese goes through what he said yesterday and then adds:
One of the things that Senator McCarthy has said … yesterday in the parliament – we learn[ed] from the referendum and the pain and hardship that created [for] First Nations people in this country … the fact there was no bipartisan support.
She went on to say, ‘We want to walk down the pathway of trying to get maximum support for an objective that we as a nation, like the referendum was held, the yelling has to stop, and we need to work on ways in which we can achieve better outcomes.’
That’s the focus of my government.
Dutton attacks Albanese over Makarrata commission promises
Peter Dutton has the next non-government question and asks:
Recently when asked about attaching a Makarrata commission with responsibility for truth-telling, the prime minister said, well, that is not what we have proposed, but on election night 2022 the prime minister promised to implement that would restate in full, the voice, truth-telling and treaty and repeated that promise on more than 34 occasions.
What is this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly, saying one thing and doing another?
That is three for “tricky” for those keeping count.
Clare O’Neil continues:
The air is feeling a little fresher in here now without the member for Deakin in the chamber. Not for the first time, speaker, the member for Deakin is making absolutely no sense. If he is concerned about the impact this union is having on residential construction prices, that he can go into his caucus room and talk to his senator colleagues about helping our government clean up this union.
(There are more interjections)
What is up with these guys today, speaker?
Peter Dutton wants to know if Milton Dick ruled whether Clare O’Neil was being relevant to the question, in the point of order that Michael Sukkar raised (and the same one he was booted out in). Dugald Dick is having none of it.
Just so I am clear, you don’t have standing to raise another point of or on [a] clarification of a ruling. This has never happened before in practice.
I understand what you are trying to do. You are trying to get me to say what was your ruling and clarify. We have already made it when I dealt with the member for Deakin, if you were not happy with the way I handled that, you wanted something, you could have done that then.
It doesn’t enable you to do that in the future. We have done this a couple of times over the clarity of the house when a ruling is made, that is the time to take action. Not to then wait a couple of minutes, 30 seconds later to go, what was your ruling? OK?
O’Neil concludes her answer.
LNP’s Michael Sukkar ejected from question time
Back to the house of reps chamber and Michael Sukkar is trying for round two:
The minister yesterday in question time claimed some experts believe CFMEU corruption and illegality has, and I quote, ‘no impact on residential construction in the view of some experts’. Can the minister name those experts?
Clare O’Neil:
I am not sure the point he is trying to make here. If he believes that the CFMEU are driving up residential construction costs ...
(there are interjections)
O’Neil:
If the member opposite believes that the CFMEU was driving up residential construction prices, then why other Liberals not helping us clean up this union in the Senate?
Now, Mr Speaker, whatever your view about this, the policy fix is the same. We have a union that is a problem and our government is taking steps to fix it and the Liberals are trying to stop us from doing it.
Sukkar has a point of order:
The point of order is relevance. This was under your instructions a very tight question. There was nothing expansive about the question. Refer to the minister’s statements and [ask] her to name those experts. [If] the minister cannot name those experts because she made that up, then ...
And is booted out of the chamber under 94A for adding additional commentary to his point of order.
Narelle Towie
Morrison denies removing Reynolds from defence ministership for calling Higgins a ‘lying cow’
Stepping outside of question time for a moment for an update on Scott Morrison’s evidence:
Morrison told the court that he did not remove senator Reynolds from the defence portfolio because she called Higgins a “lying cow” while watching The Project.
I should stress that I found this statement by senator Reynolds, very out of character, extremely out of character.
He said that it is not OK for senators to refer to anyone (as a cow) and that Reynolds was referring to other matters and not the allegation of rape.
It was a statement completely out of character, made in a private setting, one wouldn’t expect to become public.
He said that if all members of parliament had their private conversations made public, “then we wouldn’t have a member serving in the parliament”. He said Reynolds could not continue in the defence portfolio because of the damage to her mental health from the allegations.
There was no other reason.
Clare O’Neil: Labor has invested more on housing in the last budget than the Coalition has in nine years
Clare O’Neil:
I will share two facts with you for the one of them is that in the last five years that the Coalition were in power, the housing ministers around this country didn’t meet a single time. Five years! They didn’t meet a single time.
(Micheal Sukkar interjects and receives a warning)
O’Neil:
…We spent and invested more on housing in just our last budget than the entire nine years that the Coalition were in power. They have no credibility in this debate and this question does not lend them a single shred of credibility.
O’Neil doesn’t answer the question, but she doesn’t have to, given the preamble.
Milton (Dugald) Dick:
We’ll handle this. Unlike yesterday when I ruled that it was a tight question, the minister had to be directly relevant, when you add commentary, reports, regarding things that happened in the past, obviously the minister is able to be directly relevant to those parts of the question. Yes, there was a part of the question, but when you add in other things, unlike yesterday, this is a broader question. You don’t need to respond. Resume your seat. Resume your seat.
Michael Sukkar tries to respond. Dick asks him if it is a different point of order.
Sukkar:
This question is similar to yesterday ...
Dick sits him down immediately and says O’Neil has two minutes and 30 seconds left to answer the question.
Claire O'Neil accuses Greens of ‘shameless politicking’ as Coalition joins attack on housing policy
The Liberal’s Michael Sukkar is up next – and he has another housing question:
Yesterday the minister was forced to apologise after claiming that Treasury had modelled your failed build to rent policy. The minister claimed some experts believe CFMEU corruption and illegality has and I quote, “No impact on residential construction.” Can the minister name those experts?
This is in reference to a question Sukkar asked yesterday. O’Neil said that some experts said there was an impact and others said there wasn’t (after pressure on Sukkar about relevance to his question).
O’Neil:
And that question just following up on the shameless politicking of the Green. We have again....a Liberal MP come forward and ask a question not about how we’re going to build more homes for Australians, but about how we can play more politics in this Parliament. And I can tell you really clearly, speaker, that my focus in this role is not about what happens here in Parliament House.
Sukkar gets up with a point of order on relevance, but Speaker Dugald point out it has been 30 seconds (ministers are allowed preambles in answering). Dick:
No. Resume your seat.
Clare O’Neil says Greens-Coalition block on Labor housing legislation an ‘unholy alliance’
Clare O’Neil:
I have to say I’m not surprised by the nature of that question. I mean, doesn’t it say it all. Questions like this are not going to help us build a single new home for a single person in our country. And I want the parliament – I want the parliament to really hear this.
Labor has a $32bn homes for Australians plan we’re implementing.
When we think about what we’re doing in this policy space, we’re thinking about the childcare workers sitting up in the gallery here, those are the people who have every entitlement to deserve the support of government to own their own home.
We are thinking about homes for Australians, not silly debates in Parliament House, like other parties in this parliament.
O’Neil continues with what the government legislation seeks to do and finishes with:
What the research shows, what the experts show, is the scheme in the Senate will build more homes. There is dispute about how many homes, but it will be tens of thousands of additional homes. What I would say to the parliament, if we want to stop success and progress on this matter, then we should play politics, business as usual.
We should continue to have the Greens building this unholy alliance with the Liberals who dropped the ball on this for another decade. We’ll continue to see them come in the Senate, say they care, but block progress and play politics instead.
I can tell you through all of this debate, through all of this debate, our government will have a single focus, more homes, more affordable housing, for more Australians and that’s our commitment to our citizens.
Greens target Labor’s build-to-rent scheme
The Green’s Max Chandler-Mather is up with the first crossbench question:
Yesterday the Minister apologised for referencing treasury modelling on build to rent that did not exist. Then seemed to claim the 160,000 figure came from Property Council modelling of Labor’s scheme, which is also not true. In fact the property council says Labor’s plan won’t build any extra housing.
Experts say build to rent overseas sees big corporate landlords use “rent maximisation strategies” by algorithmically coordinating rent hikes & keeping properties vacant to drive up rents
Why does Labor want to give money to developers to hurt renters and drive up rents?”
(This is referencing an interview Clare O’Neil gave on ABC radio RN Breakfast on Monday morning, where she referred to the 160,000 figure as being based on Treasury modelling. Treasury had previously said during an inquiry hearing that it had not modelled it, so the Greens seized on that yesterday, and O’Neil apologised.)
Anthony Albanese goes through other government spending measures and concludes with:
That is what this question exposes what they are against. This nonsense campaign from those opposite who produced nine budget deficits against this government that has produced two budget surpluses.
Ask it again.
Angus Taylor’s point of order rejected by speaker
Angus Taylor then makes the mistake of thinking he is dealing with Milton Dick, when he is actually dealing with his cranky question time alter ego, Dugald (Dugald is the speaker’s given name, but he has always gone with his middle name, Milton. When he gets cranky, those who have known the usually affable speaker for awhile like to say that Dugald has come out). Taylor:
The question was about his policies and how they are failing Australians...
Tony Burke:
As you previously ruled, a point of order can’t be [another] attempt to get up a media grab. When someone is being relevant. It’s a clear abuse, like the abuse that’s continuing now.
Dick:
Look, the question was about a figure, the $315bn figure mentioned. So, if you bring a figure into it, obviously the prime minister may contest on argue that figure. And what that means.
Anthony Albanese details Coalition ‘plan’ for $315bn worth of budget cuts
Milton Dick gives a warning that he is “not happy” with the descriptor at the end of the question, but Anthony Albanese can answer it:
Albanese is properly thrilled to be answering this question – one, because people who have spent too long in parliament get excited over this sort of battle, and two, because this is a political fight the government has been itching to have for a while. Albanese:
I really do thank the member for Hume for his question, Mr Speaker. What he’s done is expose the Coalition plan for $315bn of cuts. He stood up, he stood up here at the dispatch box, and he spoke about $315bn of spending. The shadow finance minister said, on 1 August, I can tell you exactly what we wouldn’t have done, that additional $315bn of spending. That’s what they say.
Confirmed by the shadow treasurer, backed up by this leader of the opposition. Let’s have a look at what that is.
Indexation of the aged pension. Apparently they’re against that. Indexation of income support payments. They’re against that. They’re against that. We know they’re against the 15% pay rise for early childhood educators.
Etc, etc, etc.
Sussan Ley continues Coalition attack lines
The opposition is once again mixing up their speaking order – Sussan Ley had the second question on Monday, but today it is Angus Taylor. Aren’t. We. Lucky.
Prime minister, after three failed budgets, Labor has added $315bn of spending, over $30,000 per household. Last week the RBA governor linked demand to inflation and said we revised up our forecasts for demand growth and that’s due to stronger forecast public spending. This Prime minister promised to reduce the cost of living but the RBA says his decisions are pushing up the cost of living. Why does this tricky prime minister repeatedly promise one thing and then do another?
That’s two for “tricky prime minister”.
(Labor says the $315bn figure, which has been used by the Coalition since August, is all government spending and is across six years not two as has previously been suggested by the opposition.)
