Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor has refused to be honest with Australians about its plan for new toxic taxes, a lie that the government hid from Australians at the last election. Why doesn't the Prime Minister have the courage to take his toxic taxes to the next election?

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

I'm just going to rule on that. I'm ruling part of the question out regarding the use of the word 'lie', as all Speakers before me have done. The manager on a point of order?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that ruling, on 14 May 2026, you said:

I think it's in the best interest for both sides not to be referring to any individuals, people or parties using that term.

Later, on 25 May 2026, you allowed a question to be asked of the Prime Minister which (a) contained the word 'lie' and (b) did this with a direct reference to the government. So I just ask: given that that has been allowed previously, why can't we use it again this time?

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

Because I've made it clear to the House subsequent to that, which the member understands. Resume your seat. I'm going to deal with this now. I've been reflecting on the language used over the last few weeks and, more recently, the vulgar language that has been used during 90-second statements, and I'm going to make my position clear today on this matter.

I don't want to allow any ambiguity around permitting accusations of lying in whatever carefully crafted form to continue. It does not support the dignity of this House and all of us as members. An accusation that a member has lied or deliberately misled is an imputation of an improper motive. This language is unparliamentary and has been ruled by successive Speakers, including when directed at governments or political parties. I have observed, when such accusations have been made in recent sittings, language has led to disruptive and disorderly behaviour in the chamber. I deem it undesirable from that perspective as well.

I want to also address the comments that have been made both in this place and outside of it about occasions when the approach about language has not been followed in a consistent way over the years. I've looked back at previous Speakers' rulings on this matter and the number of times each Speaker has asked a member to withdraw this exact type of words: Speaker Hawker, 10 times; Speaker Jenkins, 40 times; Speaker Slipper, six times; Speaker Burke, nine times; Speaker Bishop, 21; Speaker Smith, 13; and former Speaker Wallace, twice. So I want to make it very clear, as I've been doing: I intend to treat any accusations of lying as out of order, and I will continue to ask such accusations to be withdrawn and will not allow them as part of the questions. If this behaviour persists, members may find that they lose the call or lose their opportunity to ask a question. I'm following all Speakers before me for the last 40 years in such a way.

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

Well, we're changing—

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

Order! The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under 94(a). The Prime Minister has not even begun words.

The member for Herbert then left the chamber.

We are lifting the standards today.

Honourable members interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Social Services, I heard both of those. We are going to improve standards today. This parliament has not been its best this week, in behaviour and language. I've made it clear how I expect the parliament to operate. I'm asking all members to join and make sure that we show respect to one another and behaviour is improved.

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

In the legislation that the Treasurer introduced this morning, it proposes to change the tax system to give young people a fair crack at a first home as well as to build more homes. That is what the legislation does. It also changes the way that capital gains tax is treated so that there's more fair treatment of income earned from working, which is how most Australians get their income and pay their bills and buy their food. Income earned from assets is something that is different from earning from working, and there's nothing wrong with that. But why is it that, for so long, so many have commentated that there's a disadvantage in income earned from working compared with income earned from assets?

In addition to that, there are two further changes. One is the thousand-dollar automatic tax deduction, something that will assist, particularly, low- and middle-income earners. The other change, of course, is our latest income tax reduction. We have introduced reduction after reduction after reduction after reduction after reduction—five lots of income tax reduction.

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

The Leader of the Opposition is going to take his point of order.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, the question was very clear in asking why the Prime Minister hasn't got the guts to take his toxic taxes to an election.

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

Order! Adding extra words as part of the point of order is disorderly. I remind all members, when they're taking points of order, just to state that it's on relevance without extra commentary.

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

The Leader of the Opposition was triggered when I was talking about reducing income taxes. Immediately, you speak about reducing taxes, and they get upset. They've never been more angry than when we reduce income taxes for working Australians, which is what the legislation that we've introduced today will do. We're giving every member a chance—for some of whom this might be the last chance they have—to vote on income tax reductions. Over and over again, those opposite voted against the changes to stage 3 tax cuts. They voted against the income tax cuts when we introduced them in the last budget. They went to an election saying they would increase taxation for 14 million Australians and managed to, at the same time, have bigger deficits—quite an achievement for the former shadow treasurer. How did they respond to that? They made him the leader.

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

The Leader of the House, on a point of order?

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

There was an interjection made by the Leader of the Opposition, which was way beyond unparliamentary, at the start of that answer.

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

Because of the issues I've raised with this House, I can't hear every interjection, but, if the Leader of the Opposition made an unparliamentary remark, then, to assist the House, I'll get him to withdraw it.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To assist the House, I withdraw.

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition. I remind everyone that, if the number of interjections is reduced, I will hear more of the debate, which is in the best interests of the House.