Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Why did the minister block access under freedom of information to more than 200 documents about his use of false figures in official ministerial correspondence? Is it because he knows that the documents reveal that he misled the House when he claimed he downloaded false figures from the City of Sydney website? Will he now assure the House that all 200 documents will be provided to the New South Wales Police Force's Strike Force Garrad?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just going to say to those interjecting: cease interjecting. I need to hear the point of order. I've said this many times: if they interject, they'll be out of the House. The Leader of the House on a point of order.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point of order is with respect to standing order 100, about inferences and imputations. The use of the word 'blocking' carries a very strong and clear imputation and inference. I might note that if that word is to be included in the question, the question needs to be directed to me as the minister in charge of freedom of information, pursuant to standing order 98. I would be happy to take the question on notice to determine whether or not that inference and imputation is correct, but I very much doubt that it is.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker. I simply refer to your earlier rulings about the opportunity for the minister, if he disagrees with some of the words of the question, to make that clear in his answer.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. As I've made clear before, for a number of years now on this topic—as have previous speakers, particularly Speaker Andrew—whilst the standing orders were quoted accurately by the Leader of the House, the Practice has been lenient with respect to inferences and imputations. That's certainly been the case. Indeed, Speaker Andrew pointed out that, if they were strictly enforced, most questions would simply not be in order or would not be able to be asked. I've always said I'm happy to look at how we might change things in the future, but if we had a strict reading of questions I would have a very strict reading of the standing orders around answers, and that could obviously change the nature of things. The other point that Speaker Andrew made was that ruling questions out of order on that basis does prevent the minister from having any opportunity, as the Manager of Opposition Business said. So on this occasion I'm going to allow the question to proceed. It's up to the minister how he deals with that.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said yesterday, I made a statement on 25 October, which I tabled in the House yesterday. As I said in that statement, this is an outrageous accusation against me by the Labor Party. But to answer the question: of course I'll cooperate with any matter of this sort. As I said in my statement, I reject absolutely the suggestion that I or any members of my staff altered the documents in question. I won't be lectured to by the party of Aldi bags and wine boxes full of cash. I am not going to be lectured to about integrity in the week that Labor is celebrating Eddie Obeid coming out on parole.