Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:58): I think the Australian people deserve an apology from you for the contempt you have shown for taxpayers' money. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, two points of order: on being directly relevant, which it clearly is not, and on addressing his remarks through the chair. The SPEAKER: I will remind the honourable Treasurer to address members by their proper terms. Mr HOCKEY: The member for Ballarat rorted the Australian taxpayer and should apologise now. The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will pay attention to the question as asked. Mr HOCKEY: I will pay attention to the question, because I am going to do it. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY: Well, I am sorry, but there is an audit report that says that the member for Ballarat rorted Australian taxpayers. Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, a point of order: this is a wilful disregard of the standing orders; it is grossly disorderly and— The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The Treasurer will direct his remarks to the question. Mr HOCKEY: It goes to health, and I am happy to say that; it is the health of the budget that we are focused on. But I would say to the honourable member for Ballarat, who never seems to get her facts right— Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: the comment that was made earlier, with respect to 'wilful', must be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary. The SPEAKER: This is not the time for argument. Resume your seat. The Treasurer has the call. Mr HOCKEY: The honourable member for Ballarat— The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will address his remarks to the question or resume his seat. Mr Hockey: I am trying to do that. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will desist. Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw. You cannot make an accusation such as that against another member of parliament without a substantive motion. I would ask him, for the dignity of the House, to simply withdraw and then he can go on to answer the question. It cannot be left to stand. The SPEAKER: The member would assist the chair if he would tell me precisely what he wishes to have withdrawn. The noise is so great that I cannot hear. Mr Albanese: The term 'wilful', very clearly. The SPEAKER: Wilful what? Mr Albanese: You are aware of what it is and he knows full well. He has shown a sense of decency from time to time and I would ask him to do it here now. The SPEAKER: If the Treasurer did use an unparliamentary term, I would ask him to assist the House. But if he says he has not—I have not heard an unparliamentary term. Mr HOCKEY: I have not, Madam Speaker. The honourable member for Grayndler used to talk about 'regional rorts' all the time. So 'rort' is not an unparliamentary term—only when it applies to Labor, of course, but that is so common now. The SPEAKER: The term 'rort' is not an unparliamentary term; you are quite right. Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to page 515 of Practice. It says: … all imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members are considered to be highly disorderly. The reason we referred to the word 'wilful' is that it goes to claiming an improper motive. The SPEAKER: I do not think the term 'wilful' does. The Treasurer has the call. Mr HOCKEY: To go to the member for Ballarat's question, how about this: Labor kept the private health insurance rebate means test in the budget for six budget updates. It was first proposed in the 2009 budget— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney! Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr Bowen interjecting — The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon and the member for Sydney will desist! Mr HOCKEY: The measure was rejected by the Senate for the first time on 9 September. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned! Mr HOCKEY: Then they put it into MYEFO, even though it had been rejected by the Senate, and then it was rejected by the Senate a second time. But Labor, undeterred, kept putting it in the budget—in 2010, in the 2010 economic statement, in the 2010 MYEFO, in the 2011 budget and in the 2011 MYEFO—and, at the end of the day, it actually went through the Senate. So Labor actually are accusing us of doing things that they never did! The hypocrisy of the Labor Party is extraordinary. We know you have an insipidly weak leader. We know that the Labor Party cannot hold a principle from midnight to dawn. But for the Labor Party to accuse us of rorting processes, after the behaviour of the member for Ballarat, cut me a break!