Angus Taylor is up. Because there is not enough pain in this Wednesday.

Q: Will the Prime Minister condemn his close personal friend Daniel Andrews attending the Chinese Communist Party military parade, alongside the Presidents of Russia, North Korea and Iran?

Nope, turns out there is no such thing as enough pain.

There is a back and forth over whether the question is in order. Tony Burke says questions need to be in relation to things he is responsible for. Alex Hawke argues that he is the prime minister and therefore responsible for everything.

Albanese says he is fine to answer the question, which stops the never ending stupid debate.

Albanese:

I am responsible for the Australian Government, the Australian Government did have a representative there and the Australian Government did have a representative 10 years ago. That was while the member was in the government. Our government chose that that would not be the case.

Zali Steggall gets a question:

To the Treasurer, climate change is projected to cost the economy up to $76 billion by 2060 per year making it one of the biggest threats to the national productivity. Government has not released the national risk assessment nor the ONI report and is continuing to approve projects that will make this economic risk worse.

You did not have an adaptation or resilience at the table when it came to the economic reform round table. What can you tell the Australian people of the financial exposure to climate risk to the economy?

Jim Chalmers:

The exposure is substantial and that is why it was part of the discussions at the economic reform round table. It is why we had the conservation foundation there. It is why we had Ken Henry there for that and other reasons.

It is front of mind for the government. I have been working closely with the minister for climate change and energy on the risk and adaptation part of our climate change agenda. You’re right to point out that it has very close alignment with all of our broader economic considerations as well. I spent a lot of time with the minister on this question.

He has said publicly that we will be releasing the risk and adaptation work this month, September of 2025 and when that happens, I will be part of that because we have worked closely together on it and when we release that important work I welcome the contribution from the member for Warringah.

These are important issues and they do have a lot of economic consequences attached to them.

Prime Minister, today to, to Australia’s shame, Daniel Andrews, attended a Chinese Communist Party military parade alongside dictators Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and the Iranian President.

Former Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk described here Andrews’ attendance as a bridge too far. Will the Prime Minister echo her condemnation?

Did the Prime Minister or his office provide any personal or consular assistance for the visit?

Anthony Albanese:

At the 70th anniversary, the former government sent a Liberal minister Michael Ronaldson to represent the Australian Government.

I understand that Australian Embassy officials will formally represent Australia this time. Last month, on 15 August, I attended a commemoration for victory in the Pacific Day in Martin Place along with the Leader of the Opposition. It was on that day that we commemorate the end of the war in the Pacific in Australia. In that case we celebrated on the day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.

We also on that day celebrate the courage and sacrifice of all those Australians who served and I can confirm it was a very moving occasion, as these occasions always are when we honour the men and women who wear our uniform.

Why is investment so low?

The recent economic round table was based on the premise that private investment was too low and as a result productivity growth was too sluggish. The round table was too late to influence the June quarter results, but those results certainly reinforce the view that investment has been flat.

In the June quarter itself total private investment in non-dwelling construction, machinery and equipment was down 0.7% and for the year to June was down 1.6%. That certainly confirms a failure of business to invest.

What about our history? Are present levels of investment anything to worry about? The following graph puts that in perspective by showing private investment as a proportion of GDP.

Private investment to GDP %

Source: ABS Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product

There is a lot going on in this graph with the inflation of the 1970s, the “recession we had to have” in the early 1990s, and the mining boom from the early 2000s. But whatever way you look at it, the last decade witnessed a steady fall in private investment as a share of the economy. This then stabilised at these historically low levels.

Private investment has settled at about 6% of GDP lower than the high levels seen in the 1960s.

The round table could have asked what was different about the 1960s. The 1960s had

• higher company taxes,
• centralised wage fixing,
• a heavily regulated financial system,
• controlled interest rates and exchange rates, and
• governments actively involved in nation building

Andrew Hastie is up next, so you know they mean serious business with this ‘Isis bride thing’

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the aforementioned reports in The Australian and your previous answer. Is the Prime Minister aware of any information that suggests ISIS brides are seeking to return to Australia and is your government making preparations to receive them?

Anthony Albanese:

I refer to my previous I give the call to the answer.

Sussan Ley then has a very big run up to this question, which is a rare break from the aged care situation for this week:

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports in The Australian that government officials are helping to bring ISIS terrorist brides to Australia. These are not ordinary citizens. They chose to align with a barbaric death cult that glorified mass murder, sold women and girls into slavery and cheered for slaughter of innocence. What actions has your government taken to guarantee the safety of Australians if these people return?

Nothing like a nice scare campaign, and also a reminder that the Coalition has always attempted to carve out ways to take citizenship away from citizens.

Albanese:

Those reports are not accurate.

That is the whole answer.

Anthony Albanese then takes the answer to some very strange places.

There are real issues with the current system. One is the anonymous nature of requests, for FOI applications.

Anyone can set up a Gmail address – it could be someone backed by a foreign government seeking interference and we do not know.

Just last week we expelled the Iranian ambassador and certainly the Jewish community, including the Jewish Board of Deputies made representations about some of the FOI applications that go to security, for example, around Jewish synagogues, Jewish schools and other areas as well.

The anonymous nature of applications coming forward is an issue. As is application fees, every state and territory other than the ACT has an initial FOI application fee.

Milton Dick then has to call for calm again.

Albanese continues:

The Opposition knows that charges are already part of the FOI system but under the proposals which we are putting forward, there won’t be any application fee for peoples’ own personal information and waivers will be provided for financial hardship.

In addition to that, we will make sure the issues such as the eSafety Commissioner who, for example, in 2023/24 saw a more than 2,000% increase in FOI requests compared to the previous year. Artificial intelligence means it is possible for someone who wants to disrupt an agency completely and bring it to a halt is able to do so. Governments have to respond to changes of technology.

Wentworth independent Allegra Spender is up with the first crossbench question and it is on integrity issues, which the Teals are on a unity ticket with.

Spender:

The Attorney-General has asked us to be open-minded to the government’s proposed Freedom of Information reforms as a step towards greater transparency. Prime Minister, I might be more trusting if government showed greater commitment to other transparency measures. Publishing ministerial diaries and disclosing sponsored parliamentary orange pass holders as the cross bench has urged would demonstrate real commitment to transparency. When will the government commit to these reforms, Prime Minister?

Anthony Albanese:

I thank the member for Wentworth for her question and for her engagement on this issue, including yesterday, I think it was, when we had a meeting with other members about these issues. I say with regard to other reforms coming on top of our creation of a National Anti-Corruption Commission and other reforms that we have already introduced, today the Attorney-General has announced consultation on stage two of public sector whistleblower reforms, that will be important going forward as I indicated that would come forward. Freedom of Information is a vital part of our democracy but right now the FOI system is broken. The current framework is stuck in the 1980s and this was before new technology was there, before email, before smartphones and we need to keep up with that. Last year public servants spent more than one million hours processing FOIs. Not doing policy, not helping people out there with their issues…

There are a lot of interjections, so Milton Dick calls for quiet. Liberal La Trobe MP Jason Wood does not read the room, and tests Dick’s patience. Dick boots him out. Do not try Dugald Dick on the Wednesday of a second parliament sitting week!

Sussan Ley is back! She has a bit of a bounce in her step today. She is obviously feeling like it’s a good day – and given the low bar for the Coalition – it is. This is a policy win (which was not the Coalition’s sole doing – without the Greens and independents like David Pocock, it would not have happened) which will make a difference for people – and shows the government can be shifted.

But of course, in the celebrations, there is hubris.

Ley:

My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. The Minister has repeatedly claimed there were “Around 87,000 people waiting for a home care package as at the 31st of March”. Moments ago in the Senate the government admitted that the wait list crisis has worsened significantly. Senator[Jenny] McAllister confirmed that, as at 31 July, there are almost 109,000 elderly Australians waiting, another 20,000 in the queue.

When did minister or his office become aware of this number and why didn’t he provide it to the house?

Rae:

There is an established process for verifying and releasing data as it pertains to the national priority system wait list. At the end of March, around 87,000 people were on the national priority system wait list and we were releasing more than 2,000 home care packages every week up to this point to deal with that question.

There is a process of verification because the government doesn’t want to release incorrect information when it comes to the national priority system. It is a long standing process that was the same as was managed under the previous government and I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the numbers that I have given repeatedly throughout this debate

Alex Hawke wants to make a point of order, but Rae decides he has finished his answer. Hawke tries anyway. Dick sits him down. It’s the Wednesday of a second sitting week. No one wants to deal with this any more.

As expected, the questions open with Sussan Ley making some political hay out of the aged care package sun.

In the Senate, the Coalition just dragged Labor kicking and screaming into delivering all 83,000 home care package places that were promised including 40,000 this year. Labor didn’t want this but the Coalition made it happen. Is the minister aware that the Prime Minister took a deliberate decision to exclude him from all negotiations today between Labor and the Coalition on these matters and if the Prime Minister doesn’t want the Minister for Aged Care in the room when the big calls are being made, why should any elderly Australian?

Hmmmkay.

Sam Rae treats the question like a dixer and also pre-emptively thanks the opposition and other members of the parliament for “working with the government to get it right”.

…We are grateful to the opposition, particularly Senator Ruston, for their genuine engagement and commitment to work with us and get these reforms right. The new support at home program will help more older Australians to stay at home for longer and with a higher level of care so people can stay close to family and close to community. To keep up with increased demand we will fast track the release of more home care packages in the lead-up to 1 November. We will bring forward an extra 20,000 packages in the next eight weeks before the new Act comes into affect. Once the new program comes into place w, we will allocate the remaining 63,000 packages to older Australians in the first eight months by 30 June 2026. This is a responsible decision that will deliver more care fast tore the older Australians who need it most while maintaining the prudent fiscal save, a key pillar of our reforms last year.