Independent MP Sophie Scamps asks Jim Chalmers:

In February 2023, the Government commissioned a review of public sector board appointments. At the time the Minister for public service stated in line with the government’s commitment to transparency, a report will be published after the review is finalised in mid 2023. The final report was handed to government over 18 months ago and yet last sitting week the government opposed a motion in the Senate for an order of production of documents to make the report public. Treasurer, why has the government reneged on the self-declared commitment to transparency?

Chalmers:

I begin by saying that the Government has a broad and ambitious public service reform agenda. It is about transparency. It is about making sure that we make the best appointments that we can as a government as well. And the Briggs report is an important part of that work but not the only part of that work.

We improved and reformed the public service to boost its capability, integrity and performance under a wasted decade under the Coalition, defined by robodebt.

We established a national anti-corruption commission. We strengthened protection for whistleblowers, we embedded stewardship as a core value of the public service into law. And we provided critically needed resources to underfunded areas of the public service like processing the backlog of veterans claims as well. I pay tribute to the Minister for that.

All of this is part of our ambitious agenda and we did as the honourable member said and ask Lynelle Briggs to review the public service board appoint wants and provide advice on clarifying the role of public sector boards and the skills we need on those boards. How board members should be identified and recruited and how we improve the diversity of board membership. And here we have been making very substantial progress. We’ve improved public sector board diversity since coming to office.

The most recent data showed us much more than half of government board positions are now held by women. The highest level since reporting began in 2009. And I know that the member for McKellar cares deeply about diversify when it comes to government appointments I wanted to say it’s a source of considerable pride. To me as Treasurer and this government in the Treasury portfolio, a woman as the head of the Reserve Bank. For the first time as the head of the PC, for the first time as the head of Treasury.

OK, cool, but when will the government actually release the report.

Chalmers says “in due course”.

OK, I think I might actually be having a stroke now because I think David Littleproud just asked a decent question?

Treasurer, a single US private company owned by a US church was able to purchase almost $500 million worth of Australian prime agricultural land in around six months without the requirement of oversight from the Treasurer or the Foreign Investment Review Board. Will the Treasurer commit to review of the thresholds that were put into effect 20 years ago to give farming families an opportunity to compete in buying Australian farms?

Does he know that this is question time? And not the place for actual questions?

And Jim Chalmers is giving what seems like an actual answer? Have I traveled to a different universe in my disassociation?

Chalmers:

I think as he knows, the House knows, Australia welcomes foreign investment but it has to be in our national economic interest.

There are strict rules and thresholds that apply to people purchasing agricultural or commercial land in Australia.

These are enforced again as he knows by the foreign investment decision of the Treasury.

We allocated almost another $16 million in the 24 budget to enhance this kind of monitoring and enforcement and also to strengthen and streamline the system.

The settings and thresholds in this case are applicable to private investors from the US.

They were established by our free trade agreement which was entered in to by the Coalition. 20 odd years ago and that remains the case today.

And what we are doing, Mr Speaker, is we’re making sure that our foreign investment arrangements keep pace. Obviously we see these sorts of cases pop up from time to time. We spend time analysing those cases and work out whether a change is necessary.

The system is robust overall. We’ve made recent changes. They’ve been about quickening the pace of approvals.

There are some historical cases like one which pique our interest but not inconsistent with the arrangements set up by those opposite.

My commitment to the House and more broadly is to continue to make sure the cases are the right ones to protect our national interest. We do have a robust foreign investment screening regime that’s very important. That’s very important and the way we build trust in attracting the foreign investment our economy needs. When cases like this pop up, from time to time we make sure we take that into consideration to make sure the system remains as good as it can be.

Sorry – I thought I was having a stroke, but was just disassociating from watching yet another question time.

Monique Ryan has a question:

The Medical Research Future Fund was set up to be a $20 billion fund which was to disperse a billion dollars a year. It’s now worth $24 billion but you’re spending only $650 million a year. While our researchers are struggling with cost pressures and geopolitical uncertainties. Will you release this funding? Will you help our medical researchers achieve their potential and work for the benefit of all Australians?

After a bit of political whiffle woffle, Mark Butler gets to the question:

The member asked about the addition of capability for research. I was trying to address the fact not only is there 2.5 times as much money, there is a priority driven stream of research funding now that I think is a real addition to what we’ve had for decades. The member is right. There’s been a policy decision in government going back to the former government to cap allocations from in MRFF at $650 million a year which is added to the $850 million budget of the NHMRC adds up to the $1.5 billion. There’s debate in the research community about that. That will play out as part of the development of a national strategy for health and medical research. A draft of that strategy is due to be published very shortly and I’m sure there will be a discussion about the maximum allocation and the Treasurer and finance minister have just conducted their 10-year statutory review and it will be published shortly as well.

Oh Ted O’Brien is back. YAY.

He adjusts his tie before asking this question, which is a Ted O’Brien tell for ‘I am being very serious and I think this is a very important thing I am saying’.

I refer to the Treasurer’s claim in his previous answer he has a fiscal rule to control spend is to bank most of the upward revision in revenue. According to his own pre-election budget, the upward revision in revenue was $8 billion. He plans to blow the lot. Plus, another $26 billion. Will the Prime Minister insist his Treasurer introduce quant fiable fiscal rules to stop his spending spree?

While Sussan Ley is placeholder as leader, Ted O’Brien will have a very large role to play. Probably why so many of their colleagues are sounding out other leadership options already.

Ted O’Brien, fresh off his attempt pretending he was a big deal at the Economic Roundtable (the man has spent DAYS talking up a two minute staged interjection at the roundtable, which was strategically leaked, despite being owned two minutes later, and is now acting like he solved the Cambridge capital controversy) now pretends to care about fiscal rules.

As Matt Grudnoff pointed out earlier today, the Government’s new 5% deposit scheme will do little to help new buyers access the market and may push house prices even higher.

This new scheme is in effect a new First Home Owner Grant (FHOG), though this time the government will be paying for the buyer’s mortgage lenders insurance rather than providing a direct grant. FHOGs are nothing new, as Lilia Anderson noted in 2023:

the efficacy of the FHOG in practice is widely disputed – and with over $20 billion going to FHB assistance over the past decade alone, it is critical that such schemes actually deliver what governments say it will, rather than simply giving the appearance of action on Australia’s much-maligned housing crisis.

For one, the FHBG does not appear to significantly increase housing accessibility for new entrants into the market. Instead, research has found that the scheme more commonly tends to accelerate the purchase of a home for those already planning to do so. So, rather than broadening access, the scheme simply tends to hasten purchase for those already about to buy a home.

Second, the FHBG tends to increase the purchasing power of first homebuyers, but in doing so it tends to further inflate house prices. This is because demand-side policies that give people more money to spend on housing tend to just end up increasing prices more. This suggests that the scheme may actually reduce housing accessibility in the long term – the very problem that such measures are designed to address. In turn, it suggests that the FHBG tends to benefit existing homeowners who will profit from their property prices increasing – and disadvantage future first home buyers, who will be forced to pay more for a home.

If the Government is serious about the housing crisis it could crack down on the tax concessions to property investors that encourage and enable investors to outbid others who want to buy a home to live in. These property investor tax concessions will cost the budget around $13 billion just this year, with this figure set to rise each year after, overwhelmingly benefiting high-income earners; over half (56%) of the benefit goes to the top 10% of income earners, while the bottom half get only 13%. This money could be redirected to building new public housing to help bridge Australia’s shortfall of about 640,000 social homes.

A MP I have never seen before stands up and even before they call him you can tell he is a LNP MP just from the look. Something about the soft white face and the blue suit. He asks the same question – why are you stealing our policies – and Tim Watts gets booted for interjecting.

Milton Dick has his Dugald mask on very firmly today. The man is in a MOOD

Andrew Wilkie has the first independent questions and it is on:

The insurance industry is failing Australians. For instance, health insurance premiums are sky high but returns to policy holders are at rock bottom. While payments to private hospitals are in fact still so bad that many are in financial distress or closing. Meanwhile, for property insurance, premiums are going through the roof and vast areas are being declared uninsurable. What exactly is the government doing about this?

A reminder – that is also thanks to climate change.

Daniel Mulino the assistant treasurer says:

I thank the member for his question and I commend his long-term advocacy for the people of Clark and his thoughtful contribution on a wide range of policy issues. I do acknowledge that a number of households across our community are feeling cost of living pressures in insurance, whether it be property insurance or health insurance.

I’ll deal with property insurance first. And can I say this is a longstanding and complex issue.

I do wants to acknowledge the member for Calare and my predecessor for having initiated or promoted an inquiry into flood insurance which I chaired in the previous term. That was an inquiry which dealt with a range of issues which were much broader than flood insurance and went to systemic issues of risk across a number of communities.

Can I say out of that inquiry, there were 86 recommendations, most of which were unanimous across members of the government, members of the opposition and the crossbench. There are already a range of things that are occurring as a results of those recommendations. For example, the general insurance code of conduct is now going to be approved by ASIC, a measure which the industry has accepted and I say is at least in part a result of that inquiry. In addition the general insurance code of conduct will be enforceable going forward once it is redesigned by the industry in consultation with other stakeholders.

They are measures which make a real, which will make a real difference to consumers. In addition, work is under way to standardised certain terms which the industry is undertaking. And which I am engaging with industry and consumer groups in relation to.

Again, that will make insurance policies easier for consumers to digest. There’s a range of other processes under way to make sure the actual clauses in the insurance code of conduct provide protections, appropriate protections around cash settlement, temporary accommodation and other issues.

Can I also say the work of my colleague, the Minister for Emergency Services, continues the disaster ready fund and the has partnership are key measures and informing those projects through the hazards insurance partnership.

Those projects as they roll out will significantly reduce risk in high risk areas and those projects will see premiums come down in those communities that benefit. Those are practical things occurring and in terms of consumer protections but also dealing with the underlying risk. The member raises health insurance.

While it’s not directly in my portfolio, can I say the Minister for Health and ageing is working closely with the sector on this issue? He has established a CEO forum by which CEOs across both health insurers and hospitals are working collaboratively on very complex issues. The government presented a package of reforms to the private health CEO forum to make maternity, mental health and hospital in the home services more available and affordable. Across both those areas, general insurance on property but health, the government has a range of short-term and long-term measures for the benefit of consumers.

Sussan Ley is back with another ridiculous question:

Labor’s 3-day Canberra talk fest delivered no real relief for Australians. There was nothing to cut power bills, lower grocery prices, nor reverse the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. Instead, Labor has left the door open to higher taxes on people’s savings, their super, their businesses, their homes, and even their spare rooms. Why is it always the case when Labor runs outs of money they come after hard working Australians?

The political discourse in this country is as wide as a thumbtack and about as deep.

And as expected we start with…nothing good.

Sussan Ley, who spent the weekend pretending the Queensland LNP was behind her and David Littleproud isn’t dragging the Coalition further into electoral irrelevancy starts the questions off with:

Q: The biggest announcement out of last week’s Canberra Talk Fest was Labor’s partial adoption of a Coalition policy to freeze the construction code, which we developed to make it cheaper to build homes. And today Labor announced a revised Morrison Government policy which we developed to help Australians get into their first home with a smaller deposit. Prime Minister, why did it take a 3-day talk fest for you to realise Coalition policies work and Labor policies fail?

OKKKKKKKAAAAAYYYYYY Sussan.

Albanese says what you would expect, but for the first question of the new sitting week, this is pretty desperate.

Here is the start of Albanese’s answer (but then I had to resume rocking under my desk)

It’s very bold to say Coalition policies work when it comes to housing. Because most of the time they were in office they didn’t even bother to have a Housing Minister*.

We on this side of the House have a $43 billion Homes for Australia plan, almost every element of which wasn’t just opposed by those opposite, and the Greens’ members for a period of time in what I dubbed the Noalition.

They continued to oppose it and continue to oppose the announcements we made and this morning again today. Continue to oppose them.

Now, tonight indeed, in the Senate they’re debating a Coalition motion to abolish the Build to Rent program. Now that is a program to support increased private rentals, some 80,000 being built. That’s been developed with the Property Council. Those opposite hate it so much they’re moving a disallowance motion on it.

*This is actually a silly attack line and they really should drop it.