Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (15:07): Well, there's a lot to unpack in that question. Mr Sukkar: Just answer the question. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Deakin has asked the question. Mr ALBANESE: Well, you've asked about five in that period. Mr Sukkar: Just pick one. Mr ALBANESE: You've been here a while. You'll work it out eventually. The population statement of 2023 made it very clear: for 2030-31, the expected population is 600,000 people below what was projected prior to the onset of the pandemic in 2019-20. So, when his leader was the minister responsible, he had figures that would show it would be 600,000 more than what it will be as a result of this government's policy. But they— The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister was referring to the December 2023 figures. The member will get the call. The Prime Minister will just pause. It's one minute in, but we'll hear from the member for Deakin on a point of order. Mr Sukkar: The point of order is on relevance. My question referred to the official ABS data for the September 2023 quarter and compared it to the number of homes being built. The Prime Minister's not even attempted to answer the question. I ask you to call him to be relevant. The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's reading out figures regarding immigration. The figure was 548,000 in your question. He's just quoted a figure around 600,000 on what the immigration figures will be for the—wait, member for Deakin; otherwise you won't hear what I'm about to say—next 10 years. It's impossible to argue that he's not being directly relevant to the question. Okay? Yes, the member for Deakin. Do you have a point of order? Mr Sukkar: I appreciate the explanation. Speaking about numbers projected for 2030 cannot be relevant to my question. It just cannot be relevant. The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. The Leader of the House? Mr Burke: Given under standing orders only one point of order can be taken on the issue of relevance, I'm not sure what that was just now. The SPEAKER: The issue of relevance raises its head yet again. On page 567 of the Practice, it clearly states: It has been ruled that while a Minister— or a Prime Minister— is addressing the policy topic which is the subject of the question, the answer is directly relevant. So if the Prime Minister is talking about figures and he is contesting the figures or is adding additional figures to the topic, he is being directly relevant. Mr Rob Mitchell: Go and ask Tony Smith! The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will leave the chamber under 94(a). No one is to interject while we're dealing with issues. The member for McEwen then left the chamber. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left. I appreciate the shadow minister would like an answer that he expects, but the Prime Minister, as long as he's being directly relevant to the topic, under the standing orders, is within the—the Prime Minister will continue. Mr ALBANESE: I'll try to remember the question, Mr Speaker—or questions! I know it was about migration or it was about housing. On migration, it would have been bigger under them. That, I know. Indeed, they complained that we weren't bringing enough people in. The Leader of the Opposition said this in September 2022: 'we do need an increase in the migration numbers … it's clear that the number needs to be higher'. That's what they had to say. When it comes to housing, we have comprehensive plans to build housing, all of which have been opposed by those opposite. Our social housing accelerator—opposed by those opposite. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—opposed by those opposite. The National Housing Accord—opposed by those opposite. The Housing Australia Future Fund—opposed by those opposite. Providing additional financing to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation—opposed by those opposite. New incentives to increase build-to-rent—opposed by those opposite. Every single proposition put forward by the government— Mr Sukkar interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Deakin has asked his question. Mr ALBANESE: is opposed by those opposite. Mr Taylor: Why isn't your plan working? Mr ALBANESE: The shadow Treasurer can't get a question, so he just mouths off the rhetoric. But the fact is that those opposite have opposed all of the measures that we have put forward on housing. They left a migration system that was, in the words of Dr Parkinson, the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under those opposite, is so badly broken. It was a deliberate decision to neglect the system. The Nationals leader has nailed it as well: 'We've got to acknowledge some of the challenges that we left behind … You've got to put your hand up … you've got to be honest with people.' He said, 'We didn't get it right in the fact that that backlog was there ...' Absolutely there was. It was a mess, but we're fixing it. (Time expired)