Thursday, 1 August 2019
Questions without Notice
Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answers and his statement in this House that he has disclosed interests in accordance with the rules.
Government members interjecting—
Could the member for Griffith pause. There are a couple of people interjecting, and I'm finding it hard to hear the member for Griffith—which is rather ironical because I always hear her interjections. I'm trying to hear the question. I'll ask the member for Griffith to start again, if that's okay.
My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answers and his statement in this House that he has disclosed interests in accordance with the rules. Does he stand by that statement and has he disclosed any income or other benefit derived from consultancy fees to Eastern Australian Agriculture, Eastern Australia Irrigation or any of their associated entities?
At least the second part of that question violates the same standing order 98(c) that we've just spoken to. The fact that the minister in a previous answer said that he'd disclosed interests in accordance with the rule is not a linkage in to ask him about any matter outside of his portfolio.
Mr Speaker, in following on from the earlier ruling that you gave, where you specified that the connection should be made, this question refers to the previous answer, refers specifically to what the statement made was in the previous answer and then specifically tests whether or not that was true.
I have a difficulty with the question, and we're just going over the same ground we did the last time this occurred. I agree with the Leader of the House that the second part of the question is out of order. The first part of the question, I believe, is in order, but I'm saying now the minister can direct himself to the first part of the question. I'm saying it's going to be very difficult, given the nature of that and what that now becomes, for there to be too many complaints about how he addresses it. I'm saying that up-front. But I'm also flagging that, if questions are asked that have one section that is clearly out of order, I'm not going to allow that mechanism to occur in the question, and I've warned on that before. On this occasion, I'll just say to the minister the first part of the question was in order and he can ignore the second part of the question.