QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Ms PENFOLD (Lyne) (14:39): 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? The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the hear from the Leader of the House. We'll get through this.
Mr Burke: 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— The SPEAKER: 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 Burke: 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.
The SPEAKER: Yes, and I'll hear now from the manager. Mr Tehan: 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.
The SPEAKER: 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. Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER: 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.