My question is for the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I understand that last night you attended a $5,000 per head post-budget dinner, which was hosted by the Federal Labor Business Forum. For the benefit of the House, were any fossil fuel industry lobbyists or other fossil fuel industry representatives in attendance?

Just before the Prime Minister answers that question, I do have some difficulty with the phrasing of that question in that it does potentially relate to party affairs that the Prime Minister can't be asked about. I'm just going to ask the member for Kooyong to rephrase her question to ensure that it's within standing orders.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Prime Minister. I understand that you attended a $5,000 a head post-budget dinner last night. Can you tell the House whether any fossil fuel industry lobbyists or other fossil fuel industry representatives were in attendance?

That question is barely within the standing orders. I'll allow the Prime Minister to answer the question, but he obviously will be able to only answer the parts of the question that are relevant to the standing orders.

I've stood and had the great honour of being the Australian Labor Party candidate in 10 elections. During those 10 elections as the candidate for Grayndler, I have spent less money on those 10 campaigns than the member for Kooyong did in her one.

Order! The member for Hasluck will resume her seat. The House will come to order. The member for Kooyong, just as any other member, is entitled to raise a point of order, but the Prime Minister has concluded his answer, so it obviously can't be a point of order on relevance. But I'll hear from the member for Kooyong.

My issue is that the Prime Minister has not in any way addressed the substance of my question.

Resume your seat. There was no point of order, and it's getting close to abusing standing orders in that way.