Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leader of the House, in the Queensland election the LNP averred, 'Do the crime, do the time,' a flagrant lie; the jails have been full and overflowing for three years, and that a vote for KAP is a vote for Labor—perish the thought! Another lie. Townsville's crime rate warranted KAP detouring from its trademark alternative for how to vote and actually preferencing the Liberals. Oh well, it's a shame—but anyway.

The muckraking is dredging up youth indiscretion. Leader, would you agree that LNP's strategies were successful? LNP moral conviction is in the gutter.

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

I have some difficulties with that question, only because it is asking for an opinion. It's a very broad question.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, can I say we're talking about lying in election campaigns. That was what the question was about. You people did it. You're on the record for doing it.

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

The member for Kennedy does not have the call. The leader is willing to answer the question. It's barely within standing orders, but we'll give it a go.

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

The question goes to the conviction of people's views when they get to the House. As Leader of the House, with the member Kennedy, who's lobbied me in many portfolios I've had over the years, right back from when I had the agriculture portfolio backing 2007 or even immigration as shadow, I will say of the member Kennedy that what he says outside the House, what he lobbies you with privately and how he votes inside the House are always the same thing. Whether you agree or disagree with the views of the member for Kennedy, he is always fearlessly in support of his electorate and he always has utter conviction in how he votes in this chamber.

I can compare and contrast that behaviour, because it would not be consistent with the rogue point of order that the Leader of the Opposition gave today for the opposition to then be voting with the Greens on, of all things, housing, the environment and immigration, and yet they have a unity ticket now all three of those. The member for Kennedy would never do anything like that. But, with housing, environment and immigration, voting Liberal or voting Green gives you the same outcome in this chamber and in the Senate. The reckless arrogance of the announcement today is extraordinary. To claim and to make the case of the connections between immigration and housing and then to decide to vote that there be no cap is reckless arrogance beyond belief.

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

The Leader of the House will pause. The member for Page on a point of order?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order of relevance: I think you were very lenient to allow a question to be in order, but the minister is now straying. It's all compare and contrast. It's all about this side of the parliament and out of order.

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

To be fair, the question was framed in that way, and I wasn't comfortable with the broad nature of it. As members know, I try and allow all questions in where possible, as I try to give everyone a fair go. Given the broad nature, the minister was happy to answer the question. With the huge relevance issue within the question, it's going to be hard for me to make sure everything is directly relevant. If the minister can—

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

I accept the caution that's made, because the question actually made no reference to the member for Kennedy but made multiple references to the LNP, so I will stay relevant to that for the remainder the answer! The Leader of the Opposition wants to make it harder for people. He wants to make people worse off. The example today with the announcement in the Senate is part of a consistent pattern from this Leader of the Opposition. Why did they vote 'no' to energy bill relief? Because they want to make it harder for people. He wants to make people worse off. Why are they opposing free TAFE, another announcement today? Because he wants to make people worse off. Why are they opposing the cutting of student debt? Because he wants to make people worse off. Why did they oppose cheaper medicines? Because he wants to make people worse off.

For every single element that comes before this House on cost of living, when he has an opportunity to show conviction, he runs a mile. He runs a mile every time, and don't look at what he says. Don't look at the rhetoric. Look at how he votes. On immigration, environment and housing he votes with the Greens, and on cost of living he votes 'no' to helping people every single time.