Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications. As the minister earlier said, people have died. Instead of coming clean about what the minister and her office knew and when, the minister chose to mislead the public and the House to protect herself. In light of evidence tabled at Senate estimates today, why doesn't the minister just say sorry?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, in terms of questions—when you go through the list in standing order 100(d) of things that a question must not contain, this has already got most of them. Separate to that, there was an assertion made in the question that can only be made by direct motion and cannot be used in that way.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The assertion that the manager is referring to is actually 'deliberately misleading'. She did not use that phrase.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the inference were being made in the form which the Manager of Opposition Business just put, the question wouldn't have concluded with seeking an apology.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we can find a way through this without the back and forth.

Just resume your seat.

Minister for the Environment, I appreciate your assistance, but I think I've got this. There were a lot of problems with that question, in terms of the way it was phrased and in terms of the direct reference and inference—if we could just take out some of those inferences. Standing order 100(d)—I want to read it out so the whole House knows:

Questions must not contain:

(i) statements of facts or names of persons, unless they can be authenticated and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible;

(ii) arguments;

(iii) inferences;

(iv) imputations;

(v) insults;

(vi) ironical expressions; or

(vii) hypothetical matter.

It did contain a lot of those things. If the member for Mallee could just tone that question down, make it factual and make it a little less personal, she could still get her point across and still make sure the House knows what she is asking the minister. I'm asking her to work with me on that for the benefit of the House. She has the call.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications. People have died. Instead of coming clean about what the minister or office knew and when, the minister chose not to accept responsibility. In light of evidence tabled at Senate estimates today, why doesn't the minister just say sorry?

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. All of the matters that have been raised today are a matter of public record and have been a matter of public record for more than two weeks. They were declared by the regulator, Nerida O'Loughlin, and me at a press conference. That press conference transcript is available on my website. It has been available for more than two weeks. This issue is not about emails. Hopefully we can all agree about that. This is fundamentally about Optus's failure to manage its network and to meet its legal obligations. My job as minister is to improve the system, to work for Australians and to deliver maximum safety and public confidence.