Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister say on 21 December, when asked about changes to the stage 3 tax cuts 'We're not reconsidering that position', when the Treasury had already been instructed to undertake work that included changes to the stage 3 tax cuts? The Prime Minister claimed his word is his bond. Isn't it now clear Australians can't trust a word he says?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume that the member who asked the question is voting against our plan, because unless she is going to vote against the plan we have put forward, then what we have just seen is all about whinge, all about hypocrisy. We changed our position through a proper cabinet process. I know that those opposite don't recognise what a proper cabinet process might look like, because the longer they were in office, they more and more dysfunctional they became. They allowed themselves to have a cabinet committee with one member on it. They sat back and allowed it; the former Deputy Prime Minister has said that he was aware of the former Prime Minister holding multiple portfolios.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one? There are three former deputy prime ministers in the room.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Riverina will cease interjecting. The member for Hughes, on a point of order.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite clear. It went to the Prime Minister saying, 'We're not reconsidering our position on the stage 3 tax cuts,' and asking why it is not clear that Australians cannot trust a word he says.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That last part of the question is pretty broad in terms of the actual hook of the question. If you ask that part at the end of the question, the Prime Minister's probably going to go to defend himself or why that is. But I'll listen carefully to make sure he's being relevant.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The whole premise of the question, the initial quote from the question, was completely inaccurate. If the member for Hughes wants to quote Treasury officials, she should actually quote them, not just read things that are given to her by those at the front.

What we're seeing here is once again consistent with the denigration of public officials. What we have done is lift up the Public Service. I have said, as I spoke about on 7.30, and as I spoke about in other interviews on multiple occasions, that I want a Public Service that comes up with ideas. I want a Public Service that uses the fullness of its capacity, that's valued and respected and that makes a contribution to public life in this country. That is what the Treasury official indicated in the evidence that she gave on Monday. We value the Public Service; those opposite denigrate it.

What we have done is have a change of position. We put it through our cabinet. I announced it at the National Press Club. Those opposite are yet to explain why it is, if that change of position is so bad, that they have changed their position in order to vote for it. If they're fair dinkum, they will have to not just vote against this plan but roll it back as well, because we know that that is really what they want to do.