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

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. The RBA forecast that inflation will not return to the midpoint of the target for two years.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

I want to hear the question. I think I know we are going with the point of order, but the descriptors which I illustrated yesterday, to be crystal clear with the chamber, are not within standing orders. This is the first question since we've had this, and I said that, if there were descriptors, it's going to be a problem. If we can just start the questions without the descriptors, it would assist the chamber greatly. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, there is a distinction to be drawn between language about an individual and a fact based assessment of the performance of a government.

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

It places the chair in a really difficult position if we go down this path, and it is a slippery path, and we'll just race to the bottom. I don't want question time to be like that. I can understand that it's an opinion, but it is not helpful, I think, for the dignity of question time and the running of the parliament.

Order! The Prime Minister will cease interjecting. On the point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I just seek clarity from your earlier advice. I just need clarification as to what standing order it is that you might be relying on. The description of a government in these terms, as the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, is quite distinct from a reflection on an individual member, which obviously is dealt with in the standing orders. But I do think it's difficult, with all due respect, to rule that an adequate description, such as I think we've put here in this question, can be ruled out of order. I don't think it offends the standing orders at all. If you can't describe a government in the terms that it should be described in, I don't understand how it is that we can have a breach of the standing orders.

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

I haven't said the question is out of order. I haven't ruled that way.

An opposition member: It was heading that way.

No, I wasn't heading that way. I was just letting the House know my views. I'm trying to assist the House so everyone gets a fair go. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the issues just raised by the Leader of the Opposition, where he said, 'How could it be against the standing orders?' standing order 100(d) says:

Questions must not contain:

…   …   …

(ii) arguments …

The same standing order, in subsection (d)(iii), states that questions must not contain inferences. The same standing order, in subsection (d)(iv), states that imputations can't be contained. The same standing order, standing order 100, in subsection (d)(v), states that insults can't be included.

You can then go to standing order 101, the standing order on the Speaker's discretion about questions, which states:

The Speaker may:

(a) direct a Member to change the language of a question asked during Question Time if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders; and

(b) change the language of a question in writing if the language is inappropriate or does not otherwise conform with the standing orders.

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

Everyone will resume their seats. I'll deal with this. The Leader of the House will finish his point of order. Then we'll move on and I'll deal with this.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I only rose because the Leader of the Opposition challenged to ask: where is this an offence to the standing orders? There's a myriad of examples.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

We're going to get through this. Manager, resume your seat for a moment. I take the point from the Manager of Opposition Business, which is correct, and that from the Leader of the Opposition, which is correct also. The difficulty for the chair—and this is not the first time this has risen—is that this is not the first time in any parliament where descriptors have come into it. So I'll allow the question, but I'm just making a point to the House that we need to be careful with the language that we—on both sides—are using with questions and answers. This has come from the crossbench before, and it has been raised. I understand the issue; I'm just advising the House—for everyone's benefit—that, if we could reframe language to be more factual and to be on point, I think question time would be a better thing. I give the call to the member for Hume.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Albanese Labor government is the weakest and most incompetent since the Whitlam government. The RBA has forecast that inflation will not return to the midpoint of the target for two years. When will this Prime Minister finally admit that Labor's reckless spending means that inflation and interest rates are higher for longer?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted that the member for Hume has asked me to make comparisons with previous governments, because when we came to office inflation was much higher and was rising, and now it's much lower. It's falling on our watch, and that's not by accident; it's because our policies are helping in the fight against inflation, a point that the Reserve Bank governor herself has made. When it comes to the two surpluses that we delivered, we turned two big Liberal deficits into two substantial Labor surpluses, and that's helping in the fight against inflation.

If he wants to compare this government to previous governments, then he should fess up that, when this government came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent and that now they're growing again. He should fess up and say that, when they left office, they left behind a trillion dollars in Liberal debt and nowhere near enough to show for it. While he's at it, he should fess up to all of the other comparisons that show that we are making welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation and in cleaning up the mess that we inherited from those opposite.

He mentioned the RBA's forecast for inflation before and said that inflation won't get back to the midpoint of the target band for a couple of years. If he were to look at the forecasts that were released yesterday, he'd see that the Reserve Bank has inflation returning to the midpoint of the target band in June—not in two years but in June. If he were honest, he would say that what he's doing, once again, is deliberately trying to confuse people. He's trying to confuse the underlying measure and the headline measure. The Reserve Bank target is the headline measure, and they say in their new forecast that they'll hit the midpoint of the target band on the headline measure in June 2025. In their estimation, it'll be 2.6 by the end of this year.

It's really good of him, it's actually quite kind and quite generous and quite gracious of him, to ask us about the RBA forecasts, because, if he were accurate about it, he would tell the House and the people who might be watching at home that, right across the board, the Reserve Bank actually lowered their forecast for inflation yesterday. In the new forecast that they released yesterday, they lowered their forecast for inflation this year from three to 2.6. In June, they lowered their forecast for inflation from 2.8 to 2.5. If he wanted to talk about underlying inflation, if he wanted to be accurate, he would also fess up and say they downgraded their forecasts for underlying inflation as well.

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

It's way up from a year ago.

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

The member for Hume has asked his question.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government understands that people are doing it tough. Despite the fact that the headline and underlying inflation rates have been coming down in encouraging ways, we know that people are still doing it tough. The difference between this side of the House and that side is that we want to do something about it, and we are.