My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the unemployment rate rose to 4.7 per cent, the highest rate in five years. Because of Labor, 103,000 more Australians have lost their jobs this year. When is the Treasurer going to lose his?

I'm asked about employment and then a usual sledge at the end of the question, so I'll address them in order. This government has the lowest unemployment rate of any government in 50 years. I note that, in the question, that was acknowledged by saying it was the highest unemployment rate in five years—since they were on the Treasury benches. What we have sought to do each and every day is to prioritise employment growth, which is why, on our watch, 1.3 million jobs have been created.

I'm asked about people in politics keeping their job. The Guardian has reported:

Some Liberals privately concede Taylor is faring no better—and possibly performing worse—than the female leader he replaced.

A Liberal MP told the Australian:

We're struggling. If you're the third party in a two-party preferred system, that's a problem.

You think?

Members on my right will cease interjecting immediately. The member for Goldstein, on a point of order?

A point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was not asked about the opposition at all. We asked about the Treasurer's role and, of course, overall employment.

Yes, there was a question about employment, but it was also about the Treasurer's job, and employment figures were mentioned. The Prime Minister will need to be directly relevant, but obviously he's able to compare and contrast about jobs and employment because that's what he was—it's a very loose question. We'll just make sure that, if the Prime Minister is doing compare and contrast, he's got to make it directly relevant to the question he was asked about. Prime Minister.

Because the Treasurer is doing a great job. This is what those opposite say about who's going to lose their jobs. A Liberal MP told the Guardian:

One Nation now controls the Liberal agenda.

Another senior Liberal MP has said:

… the only joy is that the National Party would die before us.

There's optimism for you on that side, Mr Speaker! Then another Liberal MP told the media: 'I don't think the federal president, Tony Abbott, is doing Angus Taylor any favours at all. It's becoming a weakness for him.' Another on the same theme:

Every time Tony opens his mouth, it's as if he speaks for Angus in the party. That's even disturbing the guys in the hard right.

So they come in here in their tactics committee—

Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? No? We'll hear from the manager then.

The Prime Minister's defying your ruling, Speaker. This is just a rambling mess. It's got nothing to—

To the point of order?

To the point of order, if they ask a question like that, then it is perfectly within the standing orders for me to respond in an appropriate way. If they want to ask about policy and be taken seriously, they should leave the sledges off the back of their questions.

Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? The manager, further to the point of order?

Further to the point of order, the Prime Minister should listen to his own words about rambling sledges from when he was on this side. It's completely out—

We're just going to keep it within the standing orders, so the Leader of the House can respond to the point of order.

To the point of order, I just refer to the ruling you gave yesterday, where you referred specifically to tags like the one here and the way that significantly widens where relevance is able to go. It's the same way that Tony Smith used to rule. And, at any rate, the compare-and-contrast principle always remains.

This is the Leader of the House when he was in my position—

No, resume your seat. We're not having a debate. I understand the principle that everyone is frustrated. I'm frustrated as well. But if they're broad political questions like that—the question was about whether the Treasurer was going to lose his job. That was the question, and it contained information about unemployment. The Prime Minister has dealt with that issue. But, of course, if there are going to be these broad political questions—we've had two of them already, and we may have more today; that's the opposition's and any member's right to do so—it does broaden it. Normally there are questions about facts and figures, and we're after those data. Now we're talking about some political context, so there are going to be political answers to a political question. The Prime Minister's got 30 seconds remaining to his answer, and I'll ask him to be directly relevant.

The former leader—remember her?—the former member for Farrer, said this:

On the day the leadership spilled in February, the new leader said the Liberal Party needed to "change or die" … the result in Farrer demonstrates that statement needed to be far truer today than it ever was then.

They come in here, and they don't ask serious policy questions, because they're too busy struggling to keep this bloke going.

The Leader of the Nationals in the House, if we're getting into personal attacks, the Leader of the Opposition asked for the Prime Minister to withdraw something before, and he did. So I'm going to ask the leader of the National Party. The same rules apply to everyone.

I withdraw.

I thank the leader of the National Party in the House of Representatives.