My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor lied to Australians about its plans for new taxes. Will the Prime Minister rule out changing his mind about taxing the family home?

Order, members on my left! We have asked the question. The Prime Minister hasn't begun answering. There'll be no interjections.

I thank the member for his question about tax policy. The truth is that, if the coalition had won the last election and the Leader of the Opposition had been the one delivering the budget on Tuesday night, we know that it would have contained a tax increase for every single Australian taxpayer—all 14 million of them. What I can say is that we are the party that went to an election with lower taxes—lower taxes for all 14 million Australians. On top of that, of course, they went to an election saying that they'd have higher taxes on the resources and manufacturing sectors by getting rid of production tax credits. They said there'd be higher taxes on motorists by abolishing the EV concession. They said there'd be higher student debts for more than three million Australians, because they opposed the 20 per cent cut that we put in place, and higher power bills, because they said they'd abolish the home batteries program. They said there'd be more expensive training courses because they'd abolish free TAFE, because they believe, if it wasn't free, it wasn't worth having.

The Leader of the Opposition on the point of order?

Relevance, Mr Speaker: it's not surprising he doesn't want to talk about his own policies and promises, but he should talk about those. The question did not mention alternative approaches.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! If everyone can just cease interjecting, I'll be able to—the Leader of the Opposition went further than the point of order. That's what I was dealing with with the Manager of Opposition Business yesterday—simply raising the point of order and then adding things in. That makes the chair's job a very difficult point. But—out of respect for the leader—he did that. So that went further than the point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about his position on tax, and he's giving information to the House, but I will make sure the Prime Minister is being directly relevant. He wasn't asked about alternative approaches, but he can do some compare and contrast. That can't be the majority of his answer.

I was asked about tax policy, and I'm also asked about what we can rule out. I'm ruling out all of the things that this bloke, when shadow treasurer, went to an election on. They also said, of course, when it comes to housing policy, they'd abolish build to rent, they said they'd abolish Help to Buy, and they said they'd abolish the Housing Australia Future Fund.

Despite all of this, what they managed to do was have a higher deficit that and add to government debt. The truth is they have no credibility on tax, on the cost of living, on the budget or on the economy, and tonight—

The manager, on a point of order?

The Prime Minister is now defying your ruling, because you said he needed to compare and contrast. There is no compare or contrast. He can't—

Resume your seat.

Order! The member for McEwen is warned. The Prime Minister has got 24 seconds remaining. He'll be directly relevant to the question.

I wasn't actually asked about anything that's in our budget—nothing at all. That's the point. This is the Thursday after our budget.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member for Casey has had a good go. He's now warned.

They asked about something that isn't in our budget rather than anything that is.