My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Labor's new family car and ute tax will impose penalties of $100 per gram kilometre. Does the minister agree with the comments of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy that, despite the imposition of his new family car and ute tax, the price of 'no particular model' will go up?

Once again, this is a very broad question, and it's asking for an opinion—asking, 'Does he agree?' Once again, it falls into that category of asking for an opinion. We're going to allow it. Just so we're clear, under standing order 98, on page 51, questioners must not ask ministers for an expression of opinion. The Leader of the House, on a point of order?

I respect that the question is being allowed. At any point this question time, is there going to be a question that goes to the minister who has direct policy carriage? We actually haven't had one.

Resume your seat. That is not a point of order. It may be a question, but it's not a point of order.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The shadow Treasurer has asked his question. It's going to be allowed. The Assistant Treasurer is going to answer the question, but I suspect it will be—

The member for Fairfax is warned. I'm just going to bring the House back to order. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.

I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, and I note that it's nine months since they've had an assistant treasurer shadow and over that period the Leader of the Opposition has formed the conclusion that there is nobody in his backbench who is good enough to do the job—not one person who is good enough to do the job—a conclusion that everyone on this side of the House concurs with!

Over that nine months, members of the opposition have voted against cheaper medicines and made it quite clear to Australians that they want them to pay more for medicines when they go to the pharmacist's.

Order! The Assistant Treasurer will return to the question.

Indeed I will, because the question the shadow Treasurer asks me is a question about the cost of vehicles. I am pointing out to members of the House that quite clearly they want Australians to pay more for medicines, they want them to pay more for electricity and now, they're making it quite clear, they want them to pay more for petrol as well. The reason that Labor wants to introduce vehicle emissions standards is that we believe that Australians deserve to drive vehicles which use less fuel. If you're using less fuel—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left, the minister was answering a question about vehicles and fuel, which was your question, so you'd better be short and sharp with this response. The member for Hume has the call.

The point of order is relevance. It was a very specific question. It was about Labor's—

Resume your seat. The member for Hume has asked his question. He's skating on thin ice with that point of order. The minister will be heard in silence.

We're asked why it is that Labor wants to ensure that Australians can drive the most efficient vehicles, and the answer is quite simple. The reason that we want Australians to have access to the most efficient vehicles is that we believe Australians should be paying less to fill up a tank of fuel, as do consumers in any other market around the world. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government pointed out to members in this House, Australia is one of the only countries in the world that has not yet introduced mandatory fuel standards. They didn't do it under the nine years that this mob was in government. The Australian people are going to have access to cheaper fuels because we're going to have more efficient cars. Those opposite have made it clear time and time again that they want Australians to pay more for medicine, they want Australians to pay more for electricity and now, they're making it quite clear, they want Australians to pay more money when they fill up at the bowser.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! There is far too much noise. The member for O'Connor will leave the chamber under 94(a). He's been constantly interjecting during question time. He'll leave the chamber quickly.

The member for O'Connor then left the chamber.