Albanese calls opposition ‘unworthy’ after questioned if Palestine recognition could hinder PM landing Trump meeting
The manager of opposition business, Alex Hawke, is up and asks if Albanese will table the “5,324” times he’s answered a question on when the PM will meet Donald Trump.
It’s a reference to the PM’s press conference this morning, when Albanese told a journalist to refer to his previous answers when he was asked: “What is your confidence in securing a meeting with president Trump?”
Hawke has a double-barreled question, also asking whether Australia’s recognition of Palestinian statehood is likely to help or hinder Australia getting a meeting with Trump.
Albanese starts saying he supports Palestinian statehood because it will “give heart to the ordinary people of the West Bank and Gaza”.
The fact that the manager of opposition business asked such a flippant question about the relationship between Australia and the US or about Middle East peace; it shows how unworthy they are, those opposite.
Albanese says the government has been engaging “constructively” with the US.
Key events
The minister for energy and climate change, Chris Bowen, is appearing on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing after Labor allowed time for Barnaby Joyce’s private bill to dump Australia’s net zero target to be debated, putting the Coalition’s internal struggle over the climate crisis on full display.
Asked why something with no chance of getting up was given time to be discussed, Bowen said it was a “very legitimate debate” for parliament if there was a side of politics is against climate action.
It is yet again another indication that they refused to get the memo from the Australian people including from regional builders. I shared with the house today the take-up of our cheaper home batteries policy in New South Wales, Gilmore number one, Richmond number two, Page number three … the National party is so far out of touch with their builders.
It’s parliament house, we are meant to debate things and this is one of the broader questions facing the country so why not? We didn’t seek the debates, we didn’t have the bill.
Pointed to the fact there were 70 private members bills that didn’t see the light of day, Bowen replied “we don’t mind having a debate”.
Video: Liberal senator Jane Hume calls Katy Gallagher a ‘mean girl’
Circling back for a moment: Liberal senator Jane Hume labelled finance minister Katy Gallagher a “mean girl” as debate over superannuation policy kicked off in the Senate.
Hume asked what assurances Labor could offer voters amid mooted changes to superannuation policy. During Gallagher’s response, Hume could be heard saying, “Why is it always that the mean girls go personal?” before having to withdraw the comment.
Krishani Dhanji
That’s it from me today. Thanks so much for following along on the blog.
I’ll leave you with the fabulous Caitlin Cassidy for the rest of the afternoon, and will catch you back here early tomorrow morning.
Tl;dr: what happened in question time today?
The energy was pretty low in question time today, normally there’s a heap of shouting (either in support or in opposition) from the Labor and Coalition benches, but there wasn’t much today. And I counted barely a handful of points of order, which usually add a bit of drama.
The Coalition pushed the government on its housing policy, accusing it of “copying” Liberal policy, and trying to get Labor to admit its own policies weren’t working (Labor wouldn’t bite on that point).
There was a lot of housing talk today – not only did the opposition press Labor on it, at least three-quarters of Labor’s dixers were housing policy-based as well.
Independent MP Zali Steggall asked the government if it would increase spending on climate resilience – we didn’t get a clear answer.
Anthony Albanese accused the opposition of being “unworthy” after Alex Hawke asked whether Australia’s recognition of Palestinian statehood would increase or decrease the PM’s chance of meeting with Donald Trump.
There was one MP booted from QT today: Labor backbencher Tim Watts.
Sarah Basford Canales
Gallagher calls opposition ‘disrespectful’ after her response to Greens draws raucous laughter
Continuing from the last post …
Allman-Payne asked why the federal government had enough money for Aukus submarines but not for struggling Australians. Gallagher said that was “simply not true”, drawing raucous laughter from the opposition benches.
Gallagher responded:
I know those over there [on the opposition benches] find it hilarious. The government, the party of robodebt, find this question hilarious. That is how disrespectful you are about people on income support payments. We saw it when you were in government. We saw it when you threatened people with jail for debts they didn’t earn, Senator [Michaelia] Cash.
Sarah Basford Canales
Gallagher says decision over $1bn owed to welfare recipients to come ‘shortly’ after Greens press minister in Sentate
Katy Gallagher says the Albanese government will make a decision “shortly” about more than $1bn in debt owed by welfare recipients, stretching back to the late 1970s.
In Senate QT this afternoon, Greens senator Penny Allman-Payne asked the finance minister whether the government would implement a robodebt royal commission to place a six-year limit on debts, in a move that would wipe a number of those calculated under income apportionment.
To recap, in July, the federal court ruled the social services department could estimate a welfare recipient’s income using its preferred method, meaning thousands of recipients could now be liable for debts totalling more than $1bn and dating back decades.
Gallagher said she and the social services minister, Tanya Plibersek, had been in discussions about the government’s response, including considerations about debt length and debt size, and “will resolve them shortly”.
Gallagher was keen to point out that income apportionment was distinct from robodebt – a similarity some commentators have made.
Robodebt was designed to raise revenue by clawing back debt from people who never owed that money. Income apportionment was about reducing a reporting burden to try and make it easier for people. And actually, about a third of people benefited from income apportionment over time, whereas, as we know, robodebt indiscriminately made people worse off.
QT is over
After a final dixer to the education minister, Jason Clare, on measures to improve safety for children in childcare, question time is over for the day.
Nationals ask government to concede smelters in crisis due to high cost of energy, Conroy blames opposition
Energy is back on the agenda, with Nationals MP Andrew Willcox asking whether the government will concede that smelters in Whyalla, Mount Isa and Tasmania are under administration or in crisis talks because of the high cost of energy.
Pat Conroy, representing the minister for industry, takes the call and promptly blames the opposition for its lack of a cohesive energy policy over its three terms in government.
The Coalition had a chance to fix these issues, but they left us with a graveyard of discarded energy policies; by my last count, 23.
Willcox tries a point of order, saying Conroy isn’t answering the question. Dick disagrees and says Conroy is being relevant, so he continues and says the government will “back Aussie manufacturing”.
Steggall asks PM to increase climate resilience spending to save on disaster recovery costs
Independent Zali Steggall asks the prime minister whether he’ll put more money into climate resilience.
She says for every $1 spent on disaster preparation, up to $11 is saved in disaster recovery costs, but less than 30% of the National Emergency Management Agency’s budget is spent on preparation and resilience.
Albanese says:
I think the member is quite right to point towards investing upfront. That is something my government is looking at in a range of areas as well, as well as providing for local infrastructure programs.
The minister for emergency management, Kristy McBain, enters the chat, listing through a few projects that the government is investing in through its $1bn disaster response fund.
Albanese calls opposition ‘unworthy’ after questioned if Palestine recognition could hinder PM landing Trump meeting
The manager of opposition business, Alex Hawke, is up and asks if Albanese will table the “5,324” times he’s answered a question on when the PM will meet Donald Trump.
It’s a reference to the PM’s press conference this morning, when Albanese told a journalist to refer to his previous answers when he was asked: “What is your confidence in securing a meeting with president Trump?”
Hawke has a double-barreled question, also asking whether Australia’s recognition of Palestinian statehood is likely to help or hinder Australia getting a meeting with Trump.
Albanese starts saying he supports Palestinian statehood because it will “give heart to the ordinary people of the West Bank and Gaza”.
The fact that the manager of opposition business asked such a flippant question about the relationship between Australia and the US or about Middle East peace; it shows how unworthy they are, those opposite.
Albanese says the government has been engaging “constructively” with the US.
Independent MP asks if government has ‘reneged’ on transparency commitment after public sector board review kept private
Why has the government “reneged on [its] self-declared commitment to transparency”?
That’s the question from independent MP Sophie Scamps, who says the government commissioned a review of public sector board appointments in February 2023 but hasn’t released the final report handed to the government more than 18 months ago.
She says the government opposed a motion in the Senate at the last sitting fortnight to make the documents public.
Chalmers says Labor has been fixing the public sector, making it more transparent and increasing its capability. He says the review in question was about increasing diversity of board membership:
We’ve improved public sector board diversity since coming to office. The most recent data showed us much more than half of government board positions are now held by women.
But Scamps makes a point of order, saying the treasurer hasn’t said if and when that report will be made public.
Chalmers says it will be made public “in due course”. Clear as mud!
Nationals leader asks whether government will review foreign investment thresholds. Chalmers says: ‘system is robust’
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, has the next opposition question, asking Jim Chalmers whether the government will review the thresholds of the foreign investment review board for individuals or entities from overseas trying to buy Australian land.
Littleproud says:
A single US private company owned by a US church was able to purchase almost $500m worth of Australian prime agricultural land in around six months without the requirement of oversight from the treasurer or the foreign investment review board.
Chalmers says there is a “robust” foreign investment screening regime, and Australia welcomes foreign investment, but it must be in “our national economic interest”.
There are strict rules and thresholds that apply to people purchasing agricultural or commercial land in Australia …
Obviously we see these sorts of cases pop up from time to time. We spend time analysing those cases and work out whether a change is necessary. The system is robust overall. We’ve made recent changes.
Monique Ryan questions health minister over medical research funding
Back to the house: Monique Ryan gets the next cross-bench question, asking the health minister, Mark Butler:
The Medical Research Future Fund was set up to be a $20bn fund, which was to disperse a billion dollars a year. It’s now worth $24bn, but you’re spending only $650m a year, while our researchers are struggling with cost pressures and geopolitical uncertainties. Will you release this funding?
Butler discusses the benefits of the funding for Australian medical research, but he won’t say whether more of the funding will be unlocked.
It’s a point that Ryan notices too, making a point of order to ask the minister to answer the actual question. But speaker Milton Dick says Butler is being relevant.
Butler says the spending cap of $650m was put in place under the previous government, but that figure can be reviewed under the upcoming national strategy for health and medical research.
A draft of that strategy is due to be published very shortly, and I’m sure there will be a discussion about the maximum allocation.
Senate debate kicks off with ‘mean girls’ scuffle
Sarah Basford Canales
Meanwhile, over in the lesser-known, lesser-watched question time in the Senate, debate has kicked off with a scuffle.
The Liberal senator Jane Hume asks the government what assurances Labor can offer elderly Australians that there won’t be changes this term that will affect their superannuation balances.
The finance minister, Katy Gallagher, begins delivering her answer, but as usual, the art of political performance takes hold and the interjections begin.
Hume says, “Why is it always that the mean girls go personal?” before having to withdraw the comment.
Gallagher begins but pauses to say she is “kind of struck” by the “mean girls” comment.
I always expect better from you but there you go.
O’Brien pushes Albanese to stop Chalmers’ spending spree, PM ducks question before treasurer responds with zinger
Ted O’Brien is back and asks the prime minister whether he will “insist” that the government introduce quantifiable fiscal rules to stop Jim Chalmers’ spending spree. O’Brien says:
I refer to the Treasurer’s claim in his previous answer he has a fiscal rule to control spend is to bank most of the upward revision in revenue. According to his own pre-election budget, the upward revision in revenue was $8bn. He plans to blow the lot. Plus, another $26bn.
Albanese says he “insists” Chalmers keeps doing “great work”.
We have our first point of order for the day: O’Brien says the question was whether Albanese will “insist that his Treasurer introduces fiscal rules”. Milton Dick tells the PM to stay relevant.
Albanese says some similar lines, and then Jim Chalmers takes the mic, ending with this zinger:
We will stack up our record on responsible economic management against those opposite any day. And I hope that these questions continue. Because when I was told that the member for Fairfax gave a speech about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I confess that the word Wonka was almost the word that came to mind.
A brief interjection here: this is possibly the most tame I have ever seen question time.
While one Labor backbencher was booted out, the opposition hasn’t made a single point of order.
It’s also meant minimal interjection or judgment from the usually very sassy speaker, Milton Dick.
O’Brien and Chalmers exchange barbs on fiscal rules
Ted O’Brien changes the subject to the budget, and asks Jim Chalmers a short and sharp question:
Will the treasurer introduce quantifiable fiscal rules to contain his spending spree?
Chalmers says he’s “delighted” that O’Brien has asked this question and uses it to take a shot at him. Chalmers claims the three fiscal rules the opposition took to the election were:
Number one, higher taxes, number two, bigger deficits, number three, more debt.
We consider our fiscal rules before every budget, Mr Speaker. Those rules are important but what matters more than that are the outcomes.
