Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. During question time yesterday the Prime Minister said: … increasing capital gains tax is no part of our thinking whatsoever. However, today the Prime Minister has answered a question indicating that he will increase the capital gains tax on millions of superannuation accounts. Prime Minister, which of these answers is false, and will the Prime Minister acknowledged that he misled the parliament? Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the question offends the standing orders in a number of ways. It contains an assertion about— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The members on my left will cease interjecting. Members on both sides, I have made clear a number of times: if you expect me to make a ruling, I need to be able to hear what is being said. The member for Isaacs has already been warned. Mr Pyne: The first part of the question has been asked over and over again today and has been fully answered. The second part of the question was an assertion about an answer the Prime Minister gave today which is not true. It is therefore simply an assertion and offends the standing orders. The third part, in terms of misleading the House, is something that can only be moved by a substantive motion and simply cannot be asserted across the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition's question offends the standing orders in a least three ways. Mr Burke: The first part of the question goes to a fundamental issue for every member of parliament in this House about whether someone has misled the parliament. There is nothing more serious within the parliament than that. On the second issue, if the assertion from the Leader of the House is correct and that claim is wrong, then the Prime Minister clearly must have misled. The third part of the claim goes to whether or not the Prime Minister misled the House because the first two are different versions of events. The first two are contradictory claims; therefore, we are left with no choice but to ask whether or not there has been a mislead. We have not asked whether it was deliberate. The SPEAKER: I am going to rule on this quickly and members cannot interject while I do so. Whilst I have heard both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, Speaker Andrew addressed points of order like this, and it is the approach I think is best to take in free-flowing debate: when an assertion is made the chair cannot be there to judge the factual accuracy of assertions, and in preventing the question it prevents the minister, in this case the Prime Minister, from refuting it if they wish. With respect to the Leader of the House's point about misleading the parliament, questions need to be very careful in that regard. Without hearing the question again and delaying the House, I am just going to ask the Prime Minister to ignore that part of the question.