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

My question is to the Minister for Housing. Yesterday the minister was forced to apologise after claiming Treasury had modelled the government's failed build-to-rent policy. During question time yesterday, the minister claimed some experts believe CFMEU corruption and illegality has 'no impact on residential construction'. Can be minister name those experts?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! Members on my right, cease interjecting.

The member for Wills will leave the chamber under 94(a), immediately.

The member for Wills then left the chamber.

There will be no interjections whilst questions are being asked.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question is just following up on the shameless politicking of the Greens. We again have a Liberal 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. I can tell you really clearly that my focus in this role is not about what happens here in Parliament House.

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

The minister is 30 seconds into her answer. She's just going to pause. I am not sure what the remainder of her answer is going to be in terms of direct relevance. She'll just pause for a moment. I'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

Thanks, Mr Speaker. The minister has had 30 seconds. The question, again, was very tight. I asked the minister to name the experts—

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

No, resume your seat. The Leader of the House on the point of order?

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

To the point of order: the shadow minister seems to have forgotten all the quotes and all the comments in the preamble, all of which open up the relevance rule. There was a series of comments leading up to the section at the end, and he can't take a point of order on relevance thinking that only the last few words will constitute the relevance rule.

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

Resume your seat. We'll handle this. Unlike yesterday, when I ruled that it was a tight question and the minister had to be directly relevant, when you add commentary and reports regarding things that happened in the past, obviously the minister is able to be directly relevant to those parts of the question. Yes, that was a part of the question, but, when you add in other things—unlike yesterday, this is broader question.

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

I'm responding to the—

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

 You don't need to respond. Resume your seat, unless it's a different point of order. I've explained to the member the difference between yesterday's question and this question and the elements of it, but I will hear him on a point of order.

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

I do appreciate that. This question is similarly tied to yesterday's question.

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

No, it's not. Resume your seat. So the point of order on relevance has been taken. We've ruled on that. We've made the decision. So, for the remaining two minutes 30, the minister will be directly relevant. She has the call.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. I'd say again that—

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

The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

if we continue to see this approach from those opposite and from those on the crossbench, we're never going to get the kind of traction that we need to fix this problem for Australians. We will see a change to the housing situation in our country where we see people coming together in the centre, the states and the Commonwealth working together and the different political parties around this country setting aside politics for once and actually working together on this problem.

I have hope for the crossbench, but, for those opposite, I don't hold out a lot of hope. The truth is that we had a decade of government in this country where those opposite sat on these benches and did nothing about the housing problem in this nation. In fact, I'll just share two facts with you. 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. I'll tell you one more.

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

Order! The member for Deakin is warned. He has asked the question. He's going to remain silent. If he interjects one more time, he won't be here for the remainder of the answer or question time.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll tell you one more you've seen, led by our Prime Minister, for whom secure housing was an indelible part of his journey to the Prime Ministership in this country. We have brought the Commonwealth back into the housing discussion. We spent and invested more on housing in just our last budget than the coalition did in the entire nine years that they were in power. They have no credibility in this debate, and this question does not lend them a single shred further.