Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. A new report shows the Prime Minister saved around $200,000 on the sale of three investment properties under existing capital gains tax rules. In last month's budget, the Prime Minister broke his promise and changed those rules. Given the Prime Minister's investment success, can he explain why it's fair for him to make $200,000 and then pull up this ladder of opportunity for millions of aspirational Australians?

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

I'll hear from the hear from the Leader of the House. We'll get through this.

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

I refer to standing order 100(c), that 'questions must not reflect on or be critical of the character or conduct of'—and it goes through a range of categories including every member here. There are certain things that can be challenged in the House but only on a substantive motion. That's reflected on page 555 of Practice.

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order. We're just going to hear the Leader of the House, and then I'll hear the manager as well, but I'd like everyone to be silent on this matter so I can hear and make informed decisions.

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

There is a similar reference on page 555 of Practice which refers to the private affairs of a minister, which follows with 'ministers' conduct can only be challenged on a substantive motion.' It's always been the case.

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

Yes, and I'll hear now from the manager.

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

There are a number of points for why this is in order. First, the Prime Minister has made statements in this House previously on this matter, including on 14 May 2026. It's always been held by Speakers past, it's confirmed in practice and has been argued by the now Leader of the House that questions are allowed to be asked of ministers about statements they have made in this place. Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, standing order 98(c) says questions can be asked to ministers provided they are officially connected to matters of public affairs. The question directly references a media report—actually, two media reports—which go to the Prime Minister's handling of taxation policy. Obviously, it stands to reason that there wouldn't be such a report if he wasn't the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wants to dispute elements of the question, he can do so, but members should be entitled to raise questions about the interaction between tax policy and a minister's own arrangements, which I note also goes to the operation of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

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

This is different from the earlier question because it's been rephrased. I was not happy with the direct imputing of the motive for the last question, but this is about a media report, and I've checked that. But, the Leader of the House, it says it's not in order for questions to reflect on or be critical of the character—hear me out—or conduct of the private affairs of a minister. On page 554, also, when it lists the form and content of question relating to a minister's public responsibilities, matters of a private nature not related to the public duties of a minister—but the question has been rephrased. I just want to tell the House I'm not comfortable with this kind of language, because you open up a can of worms for everyone to be criticised and discussing personal affairs. That's the issue.

Leader of the Opposition, I'm going to allow the question, but I'm just going to remind the House that I like language to be not personal in its nature and to be on the subject and the topic. The member for Lyne has rephrased her question. I thank her for that. The Prime Minister has been asked this question. He can answer in a very broad manner about the media reports there, and he may have additional information for the House, but I'll give him some latitude regarding the leeway with which the question was asked.

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

I haven't seen the media report, but someone in the media weeks ago was good enough to forward to me the document that was provided by the Liberal Party to them with details before they chose not to run the article, because of its nature and its inaccuracies. I simply say this: all of my arrangements have been declared appropriately.

What we are doing here, when it comes to housing, is wanting to make sure that, just as I had the opportunity way back in my 20s to own my own home, a roof over my head, when I purchased a property—to save the researchers—in Beauchamp Street, Marrickville, I want young Australians and people who are now in their 20s and in their 30s to have the same opportunity. The truth is that I didn't inherit wealth. What I did was work hard, save for a deposit and buy my own home. I want—

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

The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting immediately.

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

If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to participate, he could have asked the question. I make that point. They didn't have the ticker. They gave it to someone up the back.

I make this point: Paula Pearce, a real estate agent in Griffith, said this about someone who bought a unit on the weekend: 'Her and her partner are in their 20s, and it's their first home. She told me she had always loved the complex. First home buyers in their mid to late 20s dominated inspection numbers.' In the electorate of Fraser, in Melbourne, Justin Luciew, a selling agent, said there were four active bidders, all young professionals, first home buyers, who took part in an auction. In the electorate of the member for Banks, a first home buyer outbid seven other parties in Mortdale on Saturday. The successful bidder was a young man buying his first home. He intends to move in.

We are the party of aspirations. We are the party that want Australians to have access to their own home. Those opposite show just how desperate they are.