Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister: Why is this snobbish Prime Minister telling workers, Australians, to get a better job instead of supporting Labor's plan to give 39,000 people in Braddon who earn less than $125,000—including aged-care workers—a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they'll get from this government? The SPEAKER: I'm not going to call the Prime Minister immediately. I'm going to address an issue with this question—indeed, with a number of questions that have been grating with me for several days now—and that is the use of these abusive tag lines that are in them. It leads to a— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: I will address the chamber without that. The member for Hotham was reflecting on me, in which case she can come to the dispatch box and withdraw. Ms O'Neil: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. My apologies. The SPEAKER: I will just make clear that I'm going to address the House without interjection. This, of course, leads to a situation best summed up by the member for Jagajaga's question in the last sitting week, where the Prime Minister was given a huge character assessment that wasn't a question, and that has followed in questions since. This then led to the Prime Minister, naturally, responding to what was part of the 30-second statement and question, with the member for Jagajaga then complaining about the response. As I pointed out, there was no way I was going to allow that question to be asked and then curtail the answer. My personal view is that this demeans the House because it leads to very aggressive questions that have statements in them that simply aren't questions. That particular question has taken it, I think, to a new low. Now, I am just flagging with the House that I'm not happy with how this goes. I've never wanted to curtail debate, but the 30-second time limit is for questions. I have allowed preambles, but if they are going to end up leading down this path then I'm flagging now that I will be taking a different approach. Mr Burke: May I raise a point of order? The SPEAKER: Yes, I'm happy to hear you on a point of order. Mr Burke: I want to clarify for the purposes of question time preparation whether the ruling you have just gone to goes only to questions or also to the words that are used in answers. The SPEAKER: The point I am making is twofold. The 30 seconds is for questions. I've allowed preambles, but, if the preambles are becoming abusive and that then leads to a response in the answer, that is the point I am making. Mr Burke: I don't want to detain the House— The SPEAKER: Well, I tell you what—don't; just sit down for a second. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting. I've just indicated to the House that I am uncomfortable with how this is going. I'm not making a ruling; I've just indicated that I am uncomfortable with how it is going. If it keeps proceeding down this path, the parliament will be demeaned and the public, rightly, will be quite dissatisfied. That question has a particular word in it that was used in an interjection yesterday. If we're going to go down that path, I am just saying that I will end up taking action. Having made the statement I've just made, I would hope that it is not beyond members to take some corrective action themselves. I am monitoring the situation. On this occasion I will call the Prime Minister.