Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:10): I really do thank the member for Hume for his question because what he's done is expose the coalition plan for $315 billion of cuts. He stood up here at the dispatch box and he spoke about $315 billion of spending. The shadow finance minister said on 1 August, 'I can tell you exactly what we wouldn't have done: that additional $315 billion of spending.' That's what they say. It's confirmed by the shadow Treasurer and backed up by this Leader of the Opposition. Let's have a look at what that is. There's indexation of the aged pension; apparently they're against that. There's indexation of income support payments; they're against that. We know they're against the 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. We know they're against the increased wages for aged-care workers. We now know that they are against funding for new medicines on the PBS—every one of them. Those life-saving drugs are all wasteful, those drugs that will help people in need with cancer and with diseases who need these drugs and need them listed so that they can be affordable. Under them, prices will go way up. We know they're against cheaper child care. We know that, just before question time, the deputy leader confirmed that they're against fee-free TAFE for the 500,000 Australians who have received it. Mr Taylor: Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was about his policies and how they are failing Australians— The SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, as you previously ruled, a point of order can't just be another attempt to get a media grab. When someone's clearly being relevant and the point of relevance is stated— Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Hume will cease interjecting. Mr Burke: it's a clear abuse, like the abuse that's continuing now. The SPEAKER: The question was about a specific figure, the $315 billion figure that was being mentioned. If you bring a figure into it, obviously the Prime Minister may contest or argue that figure and what that means. Because this has been continuing, the practice is clear on page 554. I ask all members to review this: … it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies— but it's equally— … reasonable for Ministers to discuss alternative approaches as part of a free flowing debate. That is in practice. In 2015 Speaker Smith adopted the same process, as Speaker Andrew did in 2000, and allowed debate on alternative approaches. You may not like the answer, but that is the practice and that is moving forward. As long as the discussion is about alternative policies within the context of the government's own policies, I'll be adopting the same practice during the debate. Mr ALBANESE: This is precisely the figure that he used in the question. They're against more money for infrastructure. They're against funding to secure the future of the National Archives and the National Library. They'll all be there cheering the Olympians, but apparently they're against funding the Brisbane Olympics 2032 as well, because they had nothing in the budget to fund it. They're against funding for biosecurity threats that we introduced as well. They're against funding for PPE and vaccines in hospitals. They're against the funding, the GST revenue, that we have passed on to the states to pay for hospitals, for schools, for police and for essential services. This question exposes what they are against. This nonsense campaign from those opposite, who produced nine budget deficits compared with this government that has produced two budget surpluses. Ask it again. (Time expired) Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr Taylor interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will cease interjecting and the member for Hume will cease interjecting.