Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Hansard source

In that case there is no point in having that section in the standing orders. It is there for a reason. In that section, if I could just point out, 'Rules for questions', 100(d)(iii) and 100(d)(iv)—I'd invite members to read the standing orders—it is clear that it is intended that inferences and imputations should not be included in questions. It's not a question of ruling whether or not one accepts that they're there; the standing orders make clear that they 'must not contain'. It's not a question of saying whether the chair feels that there is a negative imputation. The standing orders are clear. So, I'm just raising the question of the standing orders.

See this speech in context