My question is to the Minister for Education. Minister, how is the government expanding opportunities in education for all Australians while creating a fair system for both students and taxpayers? Why is it important to take a consistent approach to education policy?

I thank the member for Ryan for her question. I am pleased to be able to tell her and the House that the government's higher education reforms are expanding opportunity to more young Australians, up to 80,000 more, typically from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, and at the same time promoting excellence in our universities. Eighty thousand more young Australians will go on, on average, to earn 75 per cent more than those Australians who do not have a higher education qualification.

Our higher education reforms rebalance the contribution between taxpayers and students. Currently, taxpayers are funding 60 per cent of the cost of a student's higher education and the student is typically paying around 40 per cent. After our reforms are passed, the contribution will be about 50-50 between taxpayers and students. As we know that students will go on to earn 75 per cent more, on average, than those Australians who do not have a higher education qualification, that seems a very fair exchange between the taxpayer and the students.

It is important that there be consistency in approach in policy, not just in higher education but across government. For example, in higher education, the Leader of the Opposition says that he is in favour of the worker; he is in favour of expanding opportunity to students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds; but he said that he opposes the very reforms that will expand opportunity to many other Australians, particularly young once.

But the Leader of the Opposition does have a bit of form on this. He has a bit of form on inconsistency. Before 2007, Labor tried to convince the Australian public that they supported the Howard government's policies on border protection. Between 2008 and 2013, they allowed 50,000 unauthorised arrivals into Australia after dismantling those very same policies. Since the 2013 election, they have tried to take credit for stopping the boats. Initially they said it was their policies that stopped the boats. Now, today they want to tip their hat to the green left friends, the green left allies—

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are some really good reasons why the Minister for Education will not want to talk about higher education today, but what he is going on with now has nothing to do with his portfolio—nothing.

There is no preamble to the taking of a point of order and the Manager of Opposition Business knows that. The minister has the call but will return to the question.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will. I am merely pointing out that 'Bob-each-way Bill' wants to have it both ways when it comes to higher education and border protection. 'Bob-each-way Bill' wants to be on the side of the people smugglers and the side of stopping the boats at the same time, and it is not possible for him to do so.

The minister will refer to members by their correct titles.

I most certainly will. Whether it is school funding, ripping $1.2 billion out and claiming to have put more money in; whether it is backing Diana Asmar for the HSU election or giving money to Marco Bolano to run against her; whether it is being in favour of the mining tax in Canberra but against it in Perth—in favour of Kevin Rudd, against Kevin Rudd; in favour of Julia Gillard, against Julia Gillard—'Bob-each-way Bill' has to start showing some consistency. (Time expired)

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the end of that answer, the minister deliberately and knowingly defied a ruling you had only given moments ago.

No, there is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. I told the minister to return to the substance of the question and he did.

You told him that he needs to refer to a member by their title.

Oh, correct!

Seconds later, he deliberately defied your ruling.

The member will resume his seat. If the minister referred to someone, and I missed on that occasion, would you kindly refer to the person by his correct title.

Madam Speaker, if it assists the House, I withdraw. I will try next time not to flout your rulings about referring to the opposition.