My question is to the Treasurer. Despite the Treasurer's talk, isn't it the case that the tax to GDP ratio is now higher than at any time under the former Labor government? Isn't this just another example of the government being all talk and no action?

I thank the member for his question on tax. I thank him for the question on tax because it gives me the opportunity to talk about tax policies that those opposite have described. If I go to the statement by the member for McMahon, he said that their policies on negative gearing and capital gains tax are 'sensible, moderate and well-thought-out policy'. It made me think: when was the last time that the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, described policies in those terms? If you go back to a famous policy of his called Fuelwatch, he described it as a 'sensible thought-out plan'. He said:

We put our plans out there. We put our plans for FuelWatch which, all the objective evidence indicates, puts downward pressure on fuel prices by about 2 cents a litre at a cost of $20 million.

He said:

FuelWatch is a very good plan. We've put out our plan ...

And:

FuelWatch brings down petrol prices ...

This is the bit I like. He said this about Fuelwatch:

You've got to have a bit of credibility about this, you've got to weigh up the value of these plans.

But he did not stop there. He did not stop at Fuelwatch. He went through any number of other plans. Do we remember GroceryWatch?

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

The Treasurer will resume his seat for a second. The member for Rankin is warned! I just draw the Treasurer's attention to some earlier rulings I have made with respect to relevance. It is within order for ministers to draw analogies, but, as I have said, it is in the interests of direct relevance in the House that they remain on the policy topic. And whilst it is fine to draw an analogy—I am listening very closely—the analogy cannot be the whole answer.

There is their tax plan. When they were in government, remember the carbon tax? We could go through their tax reform plan. Do you remember this one? The Henry review. Let's go through it. There were 138 recommendations. I will go through them: (1) no, they did not do that; (2) they did not do that—I could keep going. But then I came to one that they actually decided to do. It was the only one. What was it? It was recommendation 45. It was the mining tax.

Honourable members interjecting—

It was going to raise billion and billions of dollars. It was going to build—

The Treasurer will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 91(c) and 91(e). You gave a very specific direction to the Treasurer.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

If the Leader of the House wishes to address the point of order, I will always allow him to do so, but he needs to come to the dispatch box. If the Manager of Opposition Business had listened to my previous ruling, I was referring to the non-tax elements of the Treasurer's answer. The Treasurer is on the topic of tax, and I am still listening very closely.

The opposition do not like to talk about the taxes they had in government. Of course, the mining tax was going to build all sorts of things and fund all sorts of promises. But, as the member for Lilley knows, it did not raise much money at all, did it? It was one of the amazing taxes that could not even raise any revenue. Here he comes—Zoolander!

The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer will resume his seat. Everyone can resume their seats just for a second. I will recognise the member for McMahon on a point of order, but I am warning him that he will not come to the dispatch box and give directions.

And strike a pose.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The Treasurer and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting.

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question was about tax to GDP ratio under his tenure. If he does not know the answer, he should say so and sit down.

The member for McMahon will resume his seat. That was not a point of order.

It is not just things like the mining tax which did not generate revenue, which was their tax plans. There was also the bank deposit tax, which the member opposite was the architect of. That was another careful, well thought out plan! And there was their plan to tax people's cars, which they put before the election and we had to abolish when we came to government.