Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that house prices won't fall further?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) | Link to this | Hansard source

Our housing policies are aimed at giving young people a fair crack. We've changed the system so that, this Saturday, if a young couple turn up at an auction, they're not competing versus an investor who has taxpayer support. So, if they bid an extra $20,000 or $50,000, they know that they actually get a bonus and every taxpayer helping them out by increasing the deductions under negative gearing. What we are doing is making sure that people who were negatively gearing properties when the changes came in can still continue to do so. What's more, young people or anyone else can continue to invest in a negatively geared property as well.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! We'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance, I refer to a statement by Speaker Smith on 2 December 2020. He said:

In doing that, he needs to address the question that was asked, not just deal with material that is on the policy topic but not having dealt with the question itself.

The Prime Minister has not dealt with the question about a guarantee on falling house prices.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to deal with this. I also want to refer to Speaker Smith's ruling on 1 March 2017, where he ruled about policy topics. Points of order were not to be used as an opportunity to repeat the question. We've now strayed into this territory of points of order where people are simply repeating the question and adding extra things in. If you wish to take a point of order on relevance, that's okay. But, at this stage, the Prime Minister—

Let me finish what I'm saying, and then you may respond. That's the normal process. I don't interrupt you when you're on your feet. Whilst the leniency is there to allow points of order to be taken on relevance, there have been precedents where that leniency has been withdrawn. I'm not going to do that in this case. I'll hear from the manager if he's got something else to say.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to the point that I was making, it goes to what Speaker Smith had to say:

… he needs to address the question that was asked …

That was the point that I was making.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and I can appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition would like a yes-no answer. That's what he was directly asking about. But the standing orders don't allow the Speaker to direct any minister to directly answer a question. They've got to be directly relevant. So if the Prime Minister is talking about the policy, he is being directly relevant. If you'd like to change the standing orders, you're welcome to suggest that. I've had those discussions with members before, but no-one has taken me up on that option. At this stage, if the Prime Minister is being directly relevant about the policy that he was asked about—and in this case it was about house prices—we'll make sure he is being directly relevant to that.

Thanks, Leader of the Opposition.

Government members interjecting—

The manager can have the call.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is important for question time. I'm allowed to say it. That's my job, and I don't need the peanut gallery interrupting.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I don't like that sort of terminology, as we had that issue—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not the Colosseum.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina is correct. It is not the Colosseum. Can everyone remind themselves not to interject or use that sort of phraseology. Everyone here is in their own right as a member of parliament.