Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:47): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously housing affordability and rental affordability is an issue we deal with very often in the portfolio of social services. Indeed, it is a very pleasing thing to be able to provide an answer on this issue, particularly with respect to a government under whose watch—between 2007 and 2008, and between 2013 and 2014—the proportion of low-income households in rental stress increased from 35.4 per cent to 42.5 per cent. And yet they pretend in this place that they have some magic silver bullet to both rental stress and housing affordability. What is the magic silver bullet? A new tax. Look, having been referred this question by the Prime Minister, I might quote a previous Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who said, 'Those of you who have spent time in Australia know that we are not given to overstatement'. That is something that is true, I think, for the majority of Australians but stops short of the Labor caucus, because when they came up with this policy they described it as— Ms O'Dwyer interjecting— Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— Mrs Sudmalis interjecting— The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Minister for Small Business, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member for Gilmore will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke: On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a tight question. There was no preamble. If the minister is the one who is going to answer, he still has to be directly relevant to the question. He is nowhere near it. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will make a couple of points. It was a short question. The Prime Minister in his answer linked negative gearing and housing affordability, and that is within the broad policy area. The minister is referring to taxation, and I would ask him for the remainder of his answer to stay on the subject matter of the question. I call the minister. Mr PORTER: Indeed, Mr Speaker. The premise of the Labor policy is that it is a cure to the very complicated issue of housing affordability— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr PORTER: They have described it as the most important structural reform in a decade. It is a new tax. Some category of Australians was not paying the tax in 2015, and that same category will be paying it in 2017 under this policy. It is a $585 million new tax, and that is supposed to be the most important structural reform in a decade? They have form in this area of overstatement on tax. Apparently the mining tax which was meant to raise $12 billion worth of revenue in the first two years— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER: Member for Sydney, that is your final warning. Mr PORTER: was described as 'historic'. Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter cannot raise a point of order on direct relevance; only one point of order can be raised. Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting. The member for Hunter— Mr Fitzgibbon: I will just let you go. The SPEAKER: No. The member for Hunter does not have the call. The member for Hunter cannot raise a point of order on direct relevance. Mr Joyce interjecting— The SPEAKER: I will give him the call but I will not accept or tolerate frivolous points of order. I am giving the member for Hunter fair warning now. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my right. Member for Hunter, on a point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon: And, of course, Mr Speaker, I would not— The SPEAKER: Your point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon: 104(c). The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat, and is warned! Where were we? Mr PORTER: We were at the point where we were discussing what is self-professed to be the most important structural reform in a decade. I was pointing out that they have form on overstatements about tax. The mining tax from the member from Lilley was to be a historic reform. Of course, if you measure historic as 'historic failure to raise revenue', then it was indeed a historic reform with a 97 per cent failure on the estimate to raise $12 million worth of revenue. What we have here is the idea that you can take the two-thirds of Australians who have been receiving a tax benefit, who were negative gearing and who earn under $80,000, and make them pay more tax on housing— (Time expired)