NSW budget 2025 LIVE updates: Treasurer Daniel Mookhey announces historic $1.2b child protection package; flags more homes ‘for a state that sorely needs them'
Pinned post from 1.27pm
What you need to know
Good afternoon! If you're joining us, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey has handed down his third state budget in the Legislative Assembly. Here are the main takeaways from this year's offering:
In the largest investment in child protection in the state's history, $1.2 billion will be spent to overhaul the troubled system.
The government will be the guarantor of up to $1 billion worth of new housing projects in the hope of bringing forward the construction of up to 15,000 extra homes.
$452 million will boost commuter services and roll out 50 new buses, with $1 billion set aside to upgrade Fifteenth Avenue between Liverpool and the new airport.
$12.4 billion, including funding carried over from past budgets, will go towards building and upgrading health infrastructure, with a total of $3.3 billion spent across 2023-26.
Four new schools will be built and several will receive major upgrades as part of a $9 billion spend over four years.
The treasurer is hoping to attract to NSW with the new Investment Delivery Authority, which will fast-track private investment projects valued at more than $1 billion.
If you want another brief summary, look no further than our budget in five minutes story.
Our reporters have been released from lock-up and Mookhey has returned to 'the other place' – er, the Legislative Council. But stick with us this afternoon as we bring you further analysis and reaction.
3.32pm
The Herald's view: Sensible and sober, but Mookhey's most interesting
Treasurer Daniel Mookhey's third state budget is a sensible, sober and steady-as-she-goes affair. But it also happens to be his most interesting.
With his first two economic statements largely focused on implementing Labor's election promises and dealing with an inflation crisis, Mookhey has used this latest budget to give NSW a glimpse of what a 'new normal' might look like as COVID-era spending subsides and the state's infrastructure rollout enters a new phase.
This is not – to Mookhey's credit – a big-spending budget. He has resisted any temptation to deliver a new cost-of-living relief package, and has curbed the enthusiasm of ministers who have left cabinet's expenditure review committee over recent months empty-handed. It won't win him friends in Labor or deliver eye-catching headlines, but it is the right course to chart for the time being.
3.22pm
Firefighting, natural disaster relief boosts
By Caitlin Fitzsimmons
This year's budget also includes a boost in funding for firefighting and bushfire prevention efforts.
NSW Fire and Rescue has been given an additional $42.2 million to operate a new 24-hour fire station.
The NSW Rural Fire Service will gain an additional $34.4 million to secure aircrafts and helicopters to help protect regional communities.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service has been given more money for fire management and firefighting. This includes $3.724 million for firefighting management, $8.659 million in additional firefighters and fleet, and $19.969 million for the strategic fire trails network.
As we reported this morning, NSW faces unprecedented spending pressures as a result of worsening natural disasters, with a 10-fold increase to relief payments since the Black Summer bushfires six years ago.
The NSW government has spent $9.5 billion on disaster recovery across the state in the period following the devastating summer fires of 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 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
2 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.
The Advertiser
5 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Embattled airline Qantas adds another woe to its list
RECENT QANTAS SCANDALS: * Qantas outsourced more than 1800 ground staff jobs in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a move ruled illegal and an attempt to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations by courts. It was fined $90 million, on top of a $120 million compensation payment * The consumer watchdog successfully sued Qantas for selling tickets to thousands of flights that had already been cancelled between 2021 and 2023. The 'ghost flights' saga cost the airline a $100 million fine and $20 million more in compensation * Qantas was dragged into controversy surrounding Qatar Airways' request for more flights into Australia in 2023. After the federal government rejected the request, it was accused of protecting Qantas from competition * Complaints about customer service, including cancellations, delays and lost luggage, spiked following the pandemic * Despite the numerous negative headlines, Qantas executives received hefty pay packets with at-the-time CEO Alan Joyce initially set to be paid $21.4 million for the 2022/23 financial year. The airline eventually cut his package by $9 million * Mr Joyce resigned as CEO in September 2023, two months earlier than scheduled. He acknowledged the numerous recent scandals and said "the company needs to move ahead with its renewal as a priority" RECENT QANTAS SCANDALS: * Qantas outsourced more than 1800 ground staff jobs in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a move ruled illegal and an attempt to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations by courts. It was fined $90 million, on top of a $120 million compensation payment * The consumer watchdog successfully sued Qantas for selling tickets to thousands of flights that had already been cancelled between 2021 and 2023. The 'ghost flights' saga cost the airline a $100 million fine and $20 million more in compensation * Qantas was dragged into controversy surrounding Qatar Airways' request for more flights into Australia in 2023. After the federal government rejected the request, it was accused of protecting Qantas from competition * Complaints about customer service, including cancellations, delays and lost luggage, spiked following the pandemic * Despite the numerous negative headlines, Qantas executives received hefty pay packets with at-the-time CEO Alan Joyce initially set to be paid $21.4 million for the 2022/23 financial year. The airline eventually cut his package by $9 million * Mr Joyce resigned as CEO in September 2023, two months earlier than scheduled. He acknowledged the numerous recent scandals and said "the company needs to move ahead with its renewal as a priority" RECENT QANTAS SCANDALS: * Qantas outsourced more than 1800 ground staff jobs in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a move ruled illegal and an attempt to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations by courts. It was fined $90 million, on top of a $120 million compensation payment * The consumer watchdog successfully sued Qantas for selling tickets to thousands of flights that had already been cancelled between 2021 and 2023. The 'ghost flights' saga cost the airline a $100 million fine and $20 million more in compensation * Qantas was dragged into controversy surrounding Qatar Airways' request for more flights into Australia in 2023. After the federal government rejected the request, it was accused of protecting Qantas from competition * Complaints about customer service, including cancellations, delays and lost luggage, spiked following the pandemic * Despite the numerous negative headlines, Qantas executives received hefty pay packets with at-the-time CEO Alan Joyce initially set to be paid $21.4 million for the 2022/23 financial year. The airline eventually cut his package by $9 million * Mr Joyce resigned as CEO in September 2023, two months earlier than scheduled. He acknowledged the numerous recent scandals and said "the company needs to move ahead with its renewal as a priority" RECENT QANTAS SCANDALS: * Qantas outsourced more than 1800 ground staff jobs in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a move ruled illegal and an attempt to curb union bargaining power in wage negotiations by courts. It was fined $90 million, on top of a $120 million compensation payment * The consumer watchdog successfully sued Qantas for selling tickets to thousands of flights that had already been cancelled between 2021 and 2023. The 'ghost flights' saga cost the airline a $100 million fine and $20 million more in compensation * Qantas was dragged into controversy surrounding Qatar Airways' request for more flights into Australia in 2023. After the federal government rejected the request, it was accused of protecting Qantas from competition * Complaints about customer service, including cancellations, delays and lost luggage, spiked following the pandemic * Despite the numerous negative headlines, Qantas executives received hefty pay packets with at-the-time CEO Alan Joyce initially set to be paid $21.4 million for the 2022/23 financial year. The airline eventually cut his package by $9 million * Mr Joyce resigned as CEO in September 2023, two months earlier than scheduled. He acknowledged the numerous recent scandals and said "the company needs to move ahead with its renewal as a priority"
