My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister just stop the spin and admit he was wrong?

I think I know where the manager is coming from, but, to assist the House, maybe he could reference a point. I don't want to start this precedent where you can just make a statement and then that's a question. It has to have responsibility, I think, for consistency. I ask the manager to assist the House.

My question is to the Prime Minister and I refer to his previous answer. Will the Prime Minister just stop the spin and admit he was wrong?

It was not correct to say that the federal grant would deal with the sewer woes, to quote the state government media release of 17 September 2025—I assume it's from the state government—'Putt-ing an end to sewer woes: Marrickville Golf Course to get a hole lot better'. After we made the commitment to the club, which included fixing this issue, which has been an issue since 1947, the state government stepped in. That is a good thing. I was not aware of the state government grant. Why would I be, frankly? But it said the grant is being administered by the infrastructure department. The state government in their statement said:

The club's growing popularity as a social and community hub has placed increased pressure on its ageing septic system.

The clubhouse is not currently connected to the public sewer system and relies on two old septic tanks, one of which failed and discharged wastewater onto the course impacting golfers—

The Prime Minister will have to pause, but, if the manager asks a question about an issue and the Prime Minister is reading directly into the Hansard what has happened with that issue, it is going to be near impossible to claim relevance when you've asked about his previous answer and he's directly talking about his previous answer. He's not talking about opposition policies. He's not talking about any other issue. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.

Speaker, it was a very, very specific question. It is actually pretty sad that the Prime Minister can't admit he's wrong. This is pretty tragic.

Resume your seat. I remind all members, and the manager, to state the point of order. I call the Leader of the House.

I was just going to put it to you, Speaker, that that was a deliberate abuse. You had said before the member stood—you reminded him—that there was a reference to the previous answer in how the question was posed, and the Prime Minister was directly referring back to the previous answer. There was no reason for that point of order other than abuse.

No, we're not debating about whether the point of order is relevant or not, because I've made that decision. There was no point of order, because the manager did not state a point of order. But that's okay. We'll be reasonable. We'll handle this. But if you ask a question about previous answers and the Prime Minister is giving even more detail about a previous answer—I can appreciate it's not the way you'd like the question answered. But, from where I sit and the standing orders, if you ask about a previous answer and he's reading into the Hansard explicit details under the standing orders, he is being absolutely directly relevant.

It went on to say 'and presenting an environmental risk to the nearby Cooks River' and:

Crown Lands in the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) will provide the grant from its Crown Reserves Improvement Fund (CRIF) to Inner West Council to solve the problem by connecting the clubhouse to the mains sewer.

The NSW Government funding to connect the clubhouse will pave the way for further upgrades to the golf course precinct funded by the Federal Government.

That's the point here. This is not a for-profit organisation. This is a not-for-profit on Crown land managed by the local council for the benefit of the local community.

The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

Under standing order 201, I'd like the Prime Minister to table the document he was quoting from.

Is it a private, confidential document that the Prime Minister is reading from?

I'm happy to.

The Prime Minister has agreed to table the document. When the House comes to order we'll hear—

I don't want to detain the member for Griffith, because she is being patient and she deserves the right to ask her question. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order?

It was two pages, and the Prime Minister only table one of them.

The point's been made. Standing order 201 is:

If a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs, a Member may ask for it to be presented to the House. The document must be presented unless the Minister states that it is of a confidential nature.

I asked the Prime Minister if it was of a confidential nature. He said, 'No, I'm happy to table it.' So that's the—

We're not getting into semantics here. A request was made. It was followed. Now, the member for Griffiths entitled to ask her question because she's being patient.