I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government and its Minister to deliver affordable energy for Australian households and businesses.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Even allowing for jetlag, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy has had a shocker. I have just given him the very generous mention of being the minister, because we all know he is actually the part-time minister. He has made his own quotes about his new role—his full-time presidential role. Do you know what he said, this part-time minister? He said, 'I have all the power.' We look forward to the part-time minister losing it. If only that power were directed at the things that Australians are counting on this part-time minister for.

Australians deserve affordable and responsible energy—affordable energy; responsible emissions reduction—and we know that it is possible to have both. But we also know that under this government and under this part-time minister prices are going up, reliability is going down, and emissions are flatlining.

Order! In question time, the Speaker ruled out the use of that descriptor, so I ask you to refrain from that.

Honourable members interjecting—

If any of you were taking any notice just a moment ago, the MPI title was also changed as a result of that ruling. I'm asking you to abide by the Speaker's efforts. You have plenty to say, I'm sure, otherwise.

On a point of order to your ruling, the Speaker's ruling was in relation to the rules for questions. It was not a ruling in the general parliament from the Speaker about the use of the terms 'part-time' and 'full-time'. You are able to use those terms in relation to a minister. That was the ruling that he made in relation to question time.

I disagree. The Speaker dealt with the descriptor during question time. He then adjusted the matter that is currently before the House for the discussion so that it is in order.

Your ruling makes it impossible for us to accept the ruling. If you are suggesting that we are—

An honourable member interjecting—

I'm allowed to make a point of order, thank you. Your team voted you out of the chair, mate. You're not welcome.

Order!

Well, I'm just responding.

Manager of Opposition Business, I'm happy to listen to you. But I need a little bit of order around—

Over there.

Honourable members interjecting—

I can address this quickly. If you are ruling that the terms 'part-time' and 'full-time' are unparliamentary or offensive or are language outside of the standing orders, we will take that very seriously in terms of the operation of this parliament. And there are mechanisms available to us. It isn't going to work for that to be a general ruling about the language in this parliament. It is okay to make a case that someone is part-time, full-time or anything else. It's been made many times before in practice, and it's okay. In question time, there are different rules and standing orders that apply. That is a different—

I'm going to give the minister the call on a point of order.

I have two points. Firstly—

Order! Withdraw that, please.

I withdraw.

Thank you. Minister.

I have two points. Firstly, in relation to respect for the chair, you've made a clear ruling. All members should respect your ruling and not defy it. Secondly, as I interpreted your ruling, it wasn't about general comments. It was about how honourable members are referred to. They should be referred to only by their title, which is not a revelation, and your ruling is entirely in keeping with precedent.

It is indeed a matter about how you refer to members in the chamber. So, if you wish to challenge that standing order, by all means go for it. But it is very clear in the standing orders how you address people in the House. I wouldn't let somebody do it to you in return.

I'm sorry, Deputy Speaker, but we do not agree that the terms 'part-time' and 'full-time' are unparliamentary in relation to the operation of a member of the executive. I asked you to clarify that that's your ruling. If that is your ruling, then we will take action.

It is my ruling that you do not refer to members with those descriptors in front. There is a correct title to use, and I would ask the same of government members in referring to you. I would never refer to the Leader of the Opposition as anything other than Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition and other members in general debate are referring to part-time in the nature of the minister's role, and that is perfectly acceptable language and is a perfectly acceptable argument to make. It is not a reference to their title. 'Full-time' and 'part-time' are references to their capacity and their work. It isn't—

I'm not intending to keep repeating this, but the way that the descriptor is recorded is a direct reference to the minister. It's taking his correct title and using your own version of it. I have reinforced what the Speaker said during question time and the amendment that was made to the topic of the MPI. I don't think it's opaque. It is quite clear that the references you made to members in the House—use their right title. The Speaker has said this creep is not acceptable, and I agree.