Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How can Australian manufacturers help build more homes in Australia, creating more jobs with better pay? Are there different views about how this should be done?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to the member for Aston for her question and her ongoing interest in this area. Ours is a government that's focusing on what matters to all Australians: getting a secure, well-paid job; being able to earn more and keep more of what you earn; and being able to secure your own affordable, good-quality home. Our government backs those aspirations through a future made in Australia—growing our industrial muscle, putting Australian knowhow to work, creating new jobs and making more things here. A great example of that is in the area of prefabricated, more modular homes, which rely on advanced manufacturing techniques to help construct a home offsite, cutting construction time from a year down to just 12 weeks, delivering high-quality homes, cutting costs and creating jobs—and it can help play a part in reaching our target of building 1.2 million new homes over five years. To make it easier to do this, at Friday's Building Ministers Meeting all levels of government agreed to see how we could cut red tape to help build more of these homes quicker and more affordably. As an aside, the Albanese government's tax cuts will mean a joiner in the construction industry on $85,000 a year is going to be $1,800 better off. Whether they're putting together prefab homes in a factory or installing them onsite, Labor's tax cuts are delivering for blue-collar workers.

I'm asked about whether or not there are different views. There are a lot on that side—always negative, always nasty, all the time. But they're celebrating an anniversary today; it was 10 years ago today when the coalition brought in the idea of knights and dames. As absurd as Monty Python's knights who say 'ni', it's the knights and dames who say 'no'!

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

Order! The member for Moreton will leave chamber under 94(a).

The member for Moreton then left the chamber.

The member for Wannon, on a point of order?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's relevance. Australians can't find homes. There's a rental crisis—

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

Resume your seat.

Honourable members interjecting—

No. The member for Wannon, due to his seniority, gets a bit more licence than others, but he is what we call a serial offender of getting up and giving speeches. The point of relevance is to show that the minister isn't being relevant to the question. It's not to then make a statement after. So you'll leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Wannon then left the chamber.

The minister was asked about homes. I'm just going to make sure that he gets back to the topic. Character assessments are not part of the answer. I'm just going to ask him to return to the question that he was asked.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we talked about building manufacturing capabilities in this country, those opposite said no. When we talked about shielding manufacturers from the worst of energy price rises, they said no. And today—my personal favourite—the member for New England, the stalking horse you love the most, was out there saying that manufacturing jobs had gone down, unburdened by the weight of facts. That back never had to carry facts. He ignored the fact that nearly 90,000 manufacturing jobs have been created since we came to office. He joined our good friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in only ever talking about manufacturing to talk it down. He described manufacturing as a graveyard, talking down manufacturing jobs. They're a complete rabble, not ready for government. As always, they stand for nothing; they oppose everything. (Time expired)

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. In the year to September 2023, Labor's big Australia has grown even bigger, with migration reaching a new record of 548,000, yet only 173,000 new homes were built. When will this Prime Minister admit there's absolutely no chance that his promised 1.2 million homes will ever be delivered? Why are Australians facing higher prices and fewer choices for housing because of this Prime Minister's failed housing and immigration policies?

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

Well, there's a lot to unpack in that question.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just answer the question.

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

Order! The member for Deakin has asked the question.

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

Well, you've asked about five in that period.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just pick one.

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

You've been here a while. You'll work it out eventually. The population statement of 2023 made it very clear: for 2030-31, the expected population is 600,000 people below what was projected prior to the onset of the pandemic in 2019-20. So, when his leader was the minister responsible, he had figures that would show it would be 600,000 more than what it will be as a result of this government's policy. But they—

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

Order! The Prime Minister was referring to the December 2023 figures. The member will get the call. The Prime Minister will just pause. It's one minute in, but we'll hear from the member for Deakin on a point of order.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is on relevance. My question referred to the official ABS data for the September 2023 quarter and compared it to the number of homes being built. The Prime Minister's not even attempted to answer the question. I ask you to call him to be relevant.

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

The Prime Minister's reading out figures regarding immigration. The figure was 548,000 in your question. He's just quoted a figure around 600,000 on what the immigration figures will be for the—wait, member for Deakin; otherwise you won't hear what I'm about to say—next 10 years. It's impossible to argue that he's not being directly relevant to the question. Okay? Yes, the member for Deakin. Do you have a point of order?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the explanation. Speaking about numbers projected for 2030 cannot be relevant to my question. It just cannot be relevant.

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

Resume your seat. The Leader of the House?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given under standing orders only one point of order can be taken on the issue of relevance, I'm not sure what that was just now.

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

The issue of relevance raises its head yet again. On page 567 of the Practice, it clearly states:

It has been ruled that while a Minister—

or a Prime Minister—

is addressing the policy topic which is the subject of the question, the answer is directly relevant.

So if the Prime Minister is talking about figures and he is contesting the figures or is adding additional figures to the topic, he is being directly relevant.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go and ask Tony Smith!

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

The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under 94(a). No one is to interject while we're dealing with issues.

The member for McEwen then left the chamber.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left. I appreciate the shadow minister would like an answer that he expects, but the Prime Minister, as long as he's being directly relevant to the topic, under the standing orders, is within the—the Prime Minister will continue.

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

I'll try to remember the question, Mr Speaker—or questions! I know it was about migration or it was about housing. On migration, it would have been bigger under them. That, I know. Indeed, they complained that we weren't bringing enough people in. The Leader of the Opposition said this in September 2022: 'we do need an increase in the migration numbers … it's clear that the number needs to be higher'. That's what they had to say.

When it comes to housing, we have comprehensive plans to build housing, all of which have been opposed by those opposite. Our social housing accelerator—opposed by those opposite. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—opposed by those opposite. The National Housing Accord—opposed by those opposite. The Housing Australia Future Fund—opposed by those opposite. Providing additional financing to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—opposed by those opposite. New incentives to increase build-to-rent—opposed by those opposite. Every single proposition put forward by the government—

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

The member for Deakin has asked his question.

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

is opposed by those opposite.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why isn't your plan working?

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

The shadow Treasurer can't get a question, so he just mouths off the rhetoric. But the fact is that those opposite have opposed all of the measures that we have put forward on housing. They left a migration system that was, in the words of Dr Parkinson, the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under those opposite, is so badly broken. It was a deliberate decision to neglect the system. The Nationals leader has nailed it as well: 'We've got to acknowledge some of the challenges that we left behind … You've got to put your hand up … you've got to be honest with people.' He said, 'We didn't get it right in the fact that that backlog was there ...' Absolutely there was. It was a mess, but we're fixing it. (Time expired)