Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:34): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I refer to Labor's new family car and ute tax and the minister's frequent comparison to the scheme in the United States. Between 2004 and last year, vehicle emissions in the US decreased at an annual rate of 1.4 per cent. The SPEAKER: The member will pause for a moment. I just want to hear this point of order. Mr Burke: The question is asking about a government policy that doesn't exist. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke: In terms of hypotheticals, it's actually not— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! I'm sure the minister will be able to deal with the premise of the question as he sees fit. I'm going to ask the member to continue with his question. Mr TED O'BRIEN: Vehicle emissions in the US decreased at an annual rate of 1.4 per cent. In contrast, the minister's scheme requires an annual reduction of 12 per cent. That's a rate nearly eight times higher. Why is the minister again fudging the numbers and punishing everyday Australians? The SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister for Climate Change and Energy I want to hear from the member for Warringah on a point of order. Ms Steggall: It is a point of order in relation to standing order 100, 'Rules for questions', (d)(iii) and (d)(iv), that a question must not contain inferences or imputations. I would say that the member's question was in breach of that standing order. The SPEAKER: The member for Warringah is of course entitled to raise a point of order, and we have had this issue raised in the previous couple of weeks of parliament. The particular difficulty I have is that in the examples and what Practice has shown over decades, the type of question that has been asked by the member has been asked for a very long time. There are numerous examples of where the argument raised in the question has been put to various ministers over the time. The minister has the opportunity now to disagree or agree with the premise of the question or what's in the question. And if we were to start applying this directly then indeed everyone's questions would be in focus, which, if that's the will of the chamber, we can look at. But I think even questions from the crossbench would fall under that. On the point of order— Ms Steggall: Respectfully, though, Mr Speaker, this does go to a question of principle of the standing orders. There is a purposeful mischaracterisation of a government policy that is in breach of these standing orders. It means either that the standing orders are pointless or that they are being belligerently ignored on the assumption that the standing orders won't be applied. The SPEAKER: While the member is of course entitled to her view around the standing orders, it's my job to ensure that they are enforced. And in line with Practice and what has happened for some decades now of how questions have been asked—and I'm happy to send her examples of that over the time—it would assist everyone if everyone could refresh every question and ensure that standing order 100 doesn't include arguments, inferences, imputations, insults, ironical expression or hypothetical matter. So, whilst I'll note what the member has said, this question is in order. The member is entitled to ask, just as everyone is entitled to ask, their question, and the minister will now be entitled to respond to the question. The minister has the call.