Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:19): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister lie to Australians and then introduce a GP tax? Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, there has been a great deal of tolerance given to opposition questions over the last 12 months—a very wide parameter. They are always full of argument, always full of inference, always full of debate. In the spirit of a robust chamber, you have allowed that and you have been very generous to the opposition. But accusing a member of the House of deliberately telling lies in the chamber in the question is stretching the parameters too far, and I would ask you to chasten the Manager of Opposition Business in the House or deal with him in a way that you see fit. The SPEAKER: The fact of the matter is that this tendency to utilise what is unparliamentary language in questions is not satisfactory. I would simply ask the member for Watson to rephrase his question, and this will be the standard that we will use. We will not use those terms in a question. Mr Burke: I have a point of order just before I do, and I will rephrase as you have requested. But the opposition would expect that answers like what the Treasurer just gave are disorderly for the exact same reason because he used the same terms. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business knows perfectly well that the standing orders and how they are couched entirely relate to the way in which questions are asked, not answers given, with the exception of the relevancy question. The question of what is considered to be acceptable language is determined by me, in this case. So I will ask him to rephrase his question, and this will be the standard—and all the cacophony coming from behind will make no difference. Mr BURKE: Why did the Prime Minister break his election promises and then introduce a GP tax?