Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:46): Let me correct the member: the Liberal Party did not post an advertisement at all. Let me read the text of the post that the member referred to. This is what it says—one: We're calling out up to 3,000 Defence Force Reservists to help in fire-affected areas. Two: We've also deployed three— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause for a second. I'll take members back to yesterday. I need to listen to the answer or I'll eject those interjecting rapidly. Mr MORRISON: Two, it said: We've also deployed three Australian Navy ships and multiple Defence planes and helicopters to assist the states with the response. Three: An extra 20— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. The Leader of The Opposition will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order? Mr Burke: Yes, on direct relevance. The question goes not to whether or not the ad existed. We know that. The question goes to whether or not there is a conversation with General Campbell about it. The SPEAKER: I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I've given him a fair go to explain his point of order, but, if you have in a question something that the responder wishes to contest, they're entitled to—they really are entitled to—if they believe there is a factual inaccuracy in the question. It's not for the Speaker to judge the accuracy of questions but the Practice and the standing orders make it very clear—certainly the Practice—that those asking questions need to vouch for the accuracy, and, if the minister or the Prime Minister believes that something in the question isn't accurate, they are entitled to address that. Mr MORRISON: Three, it said: An extra $20 million to lease for new firefighting plans for current and future requests. Four: That's on top of the $26 million already committed this year. Five: That means 140+ aerial firefighting aircraft in operation across Australia. Six: Paying volunteer firefighters up to $6000 for lost income. Seven: Five million P2 face masks made available for bushfire smoke. And, eight: Emergency payments to those who have lost homes or income due to fires. This was important information communicated to the Australian people. I observed the requirements of the Australian Electoral Act that any such videos need a proper authorisation, and that authorisation was provided. If you need any proof of that, a couple of days before I made that post, the Leader of the Opposition made this post: 'Listening to people, respecting people, putting— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen can leave under 94(a). The member for McEwen then left the chamber. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order? Mr Albanese: Yes, Mr Speaker. This is about— The SPEAKER: No; you— Mr Albanese: It goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: But there's already been a point of order on relevance, and there can only be— Mr Albanese: It goes to whether he is treating the head of the Defence Force with contempt. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There can only be one point of order on relevance, and that was taken earlier. Mr MORRISON: The point being made about the Labor Party is that they've represented this as a political advertisement, as they stated in their question. Two days before, the Leader of the Opposition posted a video on bushfires. It was titled 'authorised Anthony Albanese'— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs needs to withdraw that reflection. Mr Dreyfus: I withdraw. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business was seeking the call. I now give him the call. Mr Burke: I refer to your earlier rulings about when alternative policies are not referred to and say that what the Prime Minister is doing now is a breach of those earlier rulings. The SPEAKER: I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I've been very careful. Last week I pulled up the minister for agriculture on exactly that point. There's a key difference here. I have been listening very closely. The Prime Minister is not referring to an alternative policy; he is contesting a factual claim in the question, saying it's not an ad— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Interjecting on these is the worst thing you can do! He's contesting a fact in the question. He has read through some material and what he's now doing is seeking to show that what he did was no different to what others do. It's not an alternative policy. Whatever you want to call it, you didn't call it a policy in the question. Mr MORRISON: When the Leader of the Opposition makes posts on bushfires, it says 'authorised by Anthony Albanese, ALP, Canberra'. The only AAA rating this guy knows about is that it's Always About Albanese. The SPEAKER: I say to the Prime Minister that the last line of the answer has offended earlier rulings I've made about referring to members by their correct titles. I warn all ministers on that front. I don't want ministers to think that they can offend that earlier ruling by making it the last line of their answer. Mr Albanese: This goes to the Prime Minister's answer. I ask him to table any misuse of Defence Force visuals that I've made in any post. The SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he can seek leave to table anything he wants, but if he wanted to do that he'd need to ask that in a question.