Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:34): My question goes to the Acting Prime Minister. Frontier Economics has revealed that the Albanese Labor government's renewables-only plan ignores key costs, including billions of dollars in so-called sunk costs for projects yet to commence and for which the Australian taxpayers still have to pay. Is this the case? The SPEAKER: Order. The member for Fairfax will pause. I want to hear from the member for Warringah on a point of order. Ms Steggall: It is a point of order under standing order 100(d), where a question must not contain statements of facts unless they can be authenticated. And, pursuant to the Practice book, when a member refers to facts they must vouch for the accuracy of the facts, not just the reporting of them—the actual content of the facts being included in the question. So I ask whether or not the member for Fairfax vouches for the facts and figures included in his question. Mr Dutton: Just join the Greens, Zali. Why bother with the pretext? Ms Steggall: I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER: I could see that there was an exchange going on, but when someone turns their back on me I can't hear what they're saying. So, was— A government member interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! I will decide who withdraws. I will not take direction from members on my right—or left. Did the Leader of the Opposition say anything unparliamentary? Had the member concluded his question? I'll just hear from the Leader of the House before we circle back to the member for Warringah. Mr Burke: To the point of order, it's one that has been rarely raised but was raised a number of times by the former member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, during the first term of the Abbott government, and on those occasions members of the government were asked to vouch for what they'd stated. The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton: At the invitation of the Leader of the House, I'm happy for you to arbitrate and declare whether this was an unparliamentary or offensive remark. What I said was— The SPEAKER: No, Leader of the Opposition— Mr Dutton: I'm very happy to oblige. The SPEAKER: We're talking about something else. Mr Burke: Sorry, just to assist: I wasn't referring to anything that you'd said at all. If this is the moment of this term when you can say you're happy, we'll take it! But I was referring to the point of order that was raised by the member for Warringah. The SPEAKER: We've moved on from that point, yes. So, we're dealing now with the point of order from the member for Warringah regarding the validity of the question, not the issue; that's been dealt with. The member needs to be aware of the standing orders to make sure that a question raised by any member does contain fact. If I was to sit here and ask for every question to contain proof of everything that was said, it would be a very long question time. We'd be here for hours. The member for Warringah on a point of order. Ms Steggall: In relation to the standing orders, it is clear that a member can be asked to vouch for the accuracy of the information they are including in their question. That is pursuant to the standing orders and is in the Practice book. So, it is a decision upon a member, in framing their question, to include facts that they are comfortable to vouch for the accuracy of before the parliament. The SPEAKER: I'm going to listen to the question again. He made reference to a report. I just want to make sure it is within standing orders. So, I'll listen to the question carefully. Mr TED O'BRIEN: My question went to the Acting Prime Minister. Frontier Economics has revealed that the Albanese Labor government's renewables-only plan ignores key costs, including billions of dollars in so-called sunk costs for projects yet to commence and for which the Australian taxpayers still have to pay. Is this the case? The SPEAKER: I'm going to allow the question, because he's referring to a report. I haven't read the report. I'm unaware of the accuracy. But if a member of parliament refers to a piece of work, such as a news article, I assume that it is an accurate report. The member for Warringah on a further point of order. Ms Steggall: It's simply asking for the member to vouch for the accuracy of the facts that he is reporting. That is what the standing orders provide, because, once it is on the record, it is assumed as accurate. So it is simply asking for the member to vouch for the accuracy of that information. The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. We're going to move forward because any member of parliament could, including a member of the crossbench, reference a report, and if I were to simply sit here to ask for every report to be verified—I assume, given that this report has been announced, every single member and everyone watching across Australia will now check the accuracy of that. And I would hope that, in any world that it wasn't accurate, the member would have to come back to and apologise to the House if he misled or said anything inaccurate.