Barnaby Joyce warns ‘AI is coming' for clerical workers
It comes as governments and businesses around the world scramble to figure out guardrails on AI while reaping its economic benefits.
Decision makers flocking to Canberra for Labor's Economic Reform Roundtable have already flagged the challenge as a hot topic in the productivity-centric talks.
Amid a flare up in debate over flexible employment arrangements, sparked by union demands for a four-day work week, Mr Joyce on Monday took aim at recent changes giving employees the right to ask to work from home.
He said it was 'encouraging people not to employ people'.
'You can't just say you're going to work from home today or you won't have a job,' the former deputy prime minister told Seven.
'I think you've got to be careful.
'If your job is a keyboard, yourself and a computer, AI is coming.'
He said if he were a clerical worker, he would 'be doing everything to keep your jobs because if people can prove they don't need to come to the office then (they) can prove (you) can be replaced by AI'.
Asked if he had an idea how to protect jobs, Mr Joyce said he did not know if it was possible.
But he did welcome the idea of getting more Australians into trades.
'They should because I can assure you from my accountancy days, electricians overwhelmingly earn more money than people who have graduated with arts degrees or junior degrees,' he said.
'Doctors can go and make good money, but AI won't be able to turn itself into a plumber or itself into an electrician or a chippy so trades are a place where you can sustain a good level of employment.'
In a report released this month, the Productivity Commission warned against taking a 'heavy-handed' approach to AI regulation, saying to do so could stifle innovation and cause Australia to fall behind other countries.
Instead, it recommended making existing regulations fit-for-purpose.
That included plugging gaps around consumer protection, privacy, and copyright.
The commission said AI-specific regulation should only be considered as a 'last resort' for specific use cases where existing laws were clearly insufficient to mitigate harms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
20 minutes ago
- 9 News
Call for 'death tax' to help Australia raise $70 billion
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here As business, union, and community leaders gather in Canberra this week for the government's landmark economic round table, a call has come for Australia to impose an inheritance tax among other measures to raise $70 billion in tax revenue. A report from the Australia Institute claims this can be done in ways that wouldn't hurt low- or middle-income Australians. The report suggested a 2 per cent wealth tax on people with a worth of more than $5 million could alone raise $41 billion a year. A new report calls for the return of the inheritance tax. (iStock) It also found a reintroduced inheritance tax would raise $10 billion, as well as reducing "intergenerational inequality". An inheritance tax - often dubbed a "death tax" by critics - is a tax paid by a person who inherits money or property from a deceased person. They do not exist in Australia, though they previously did in state and federal form in the 1960s and 1970s. Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers will head up an economic round table in Canberra. (Alex Ellinghausen) The report's third major suggestion was scrapping the capital gains tax discount. The researchers found this would raise an extra $19 billion a year and help make property prices more affordable for those struggling to crack the market. "Australia is a low-tax country that does not do a good job of taxing wealth," Australia Institute senior economist Matt Grudnoff said. "It is one of the few developed economies in the world which has neither a wealth tax nor an inheritance tax." "Correcting this would raise huge amounts of extra revenue for essential services and ease growing inequality in Australia." He said the wealth tax would still raise $41 billion even if family homes and superannuation were exempted. "If you limited it to just the 200 richest households in the country, it would still raise $12.5 billion per year," Grudnoff said. He said many developed economies, including the US, UK, Japan, and most of Europe, had an inheritance tax or something that functioned as one. "A couple of generations ago, Australia had probate and succession duties that raised 0.36 per cent of GDP, which, if reintroduced today, would deliver an extra $10 billion in revenue," he said. "These are not radical ideas. "If we want well-funded schools and hospitals; decent, affordable housing for all; a world-class NDIS; a fair welfare system; and dozens of other things which would improve the lives of millions of Australians, we can have them." An inheritance tax would raise $10 billion, the report found. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) The economic round table this week will consider nearly 900 submissions from "experts, industry leaders and individuals and over 40 forums that Ministers have held right around the country", Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. "This healthy public debate has also made it clear there is substantial common ground on many issues – and that is where the immediate opportunities lie." money Tax Economy Australia national CONTACT US
The Advertiser
20 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Trade is a great peacemaker. Why should we go near another US-led folly?
Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost.
ABC News
20 minutes ago
- ABC News
What is going to happen at today's no-confidence motion in Tasmanian parliament?
Tasmanians could be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu today. Just over 10 weeks ago, Lower House MPs were asked to vote on a motion of no confidence in Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff. The Labor motion passed by the slimmest of margins, triggering a snap election — the fourth in seven years. Today, when Tasmania's fifty second parliament officially opens, MPs will once again be asked to vote on a motion to decide which party has the confidence of the house to govern the state. Spoiler alert — we already know Labor doesn't have the numbers to succeed. But it could still be a day of high political drama in Tasmania. Here's how things are expected to unfold. Before parliamentary proceedings kick off, a couple of events will take place for the new cohort of elected representatives. The first is an inter-denominational church service at St David's Cathedral in Hobart at 9:15am. That will be followed by a Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural reflection in the Legislative Council chamber. It's a private session for MPs. Members of the House of Assembly will then be summoned into the Legislative Council chamber for the official opening of the new parliament at 11am. The ceremony is expected to take about 15 minutes. Members of the House will then return to their chamber to elect a new speaker. The vote will be the first test of how the new parliament might function. Following last month's election, the Liberals have 14 seats, Labor 10, Greens five, independents five and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (SFF) one. But having the most seats doesn't necessarily mean that a Liberal MP will end up sitting in the Speaker's chair. In the last parliament, for example, it was former Labor MP Michelle O'Byrne who secured the role. At this stage, it's unclear whether the new Speaker will come from the major parties or the crossbench. Either way, the vote is expected to happen relatively quickly. The House will then temporarily adjourn to allow the new Speaker to be presented to the governor. The main action of the day is likely to happen in the afternoon, once the Speaker returns from Government House, at 2pm. That's when confidence is expected to be tested on the floor of parliament. The specific wording of the motion isn't yet known. But unlike Labor's no-confidence motion in June, which only applied to the premier, this one is likely to ask MPs if they also have confidence in Labor. The broader motion is designed to avoid another early election. But don't expect a quick vote, even if we already know the final result. In the June motion, debate began at about 10am and continued until the House adjourned at 7:30pm. It then resumed at 10am the following day, and wasn't resolved until shortly before 4pm. Based on that precedent, it's possible MPs won't cast their votes on the latest motion until either late Tuesday, or potentially sometime on Wednesday. Politics is a numbers game, and in a hung parliament like this, the critical number is 18. That's the minimum number of votes needed to pass a motion. The Liberals only have 14 seats, meaning they need the support of four additional crossbenchers. Ever since the election, they've been trying to woo the largely progressive crossbench with a series of policy concessions, including: Labor, with only 10 seats, needs eight crossbenchers on its side, including the five Greens. Its main pitches to crossbenchers have included: Until Monday, the outcome of the motion hung in the balance. But when the Greens confirmed Labor had not offered enough to secure their support, the result became clear. Without the Greens, Labor simply won't have the numbers, even if it were to win over the other six crossbenchers, which won't happen. Independent MP Kristie Johnston on Monday confirmed she too would not support Labor. Former Labor-turned-independent David O'Byrne went further on Sunday, saying he would provide confidence and supply to Mr Rockliff, as he did in the previous parliament, citing the need for stability. Independent MP Craig Garland earlier this month said he had no confidence in Mr Rockliff, pointing to the government's handling of the budget, the proposed stadium and Marinus Link. However, on Sunday, Mr Garland welcomed the Liberals' salmon farming decision and called on Labor to do the same. Fellow independent Peter George also cautiously welcomed the Liberals' salmon farming announcement, and expressed support for the phase out of greyhound racing. But he hasn't confirmed which side he will support when the motion comes before parliament. Another independent, George Razay, has also not revealed his hand. Carlo di Falco from the SFF has been highly critical of the Liberals' greyhound racing phase out but hasn't explicitly said if he'll support a no-confidence motion against the party and in favour of Labor. Given the motion is set to fail, the Liberal minority government will remain in power.
