Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I—and I think some of my colleagues here—could not understand a couple of rulings you made today. I wonder whether you could circulate to us an explanation of the rulings you gave in ruling out the second part of the question from the member for Griffith and in your declining to accept the point of order from the member for Grayndler. I did not understand either ruling. I did not seek to dissent at the time because it would have disrupted question time. I wonder whether you could circulate to honourable members an explanation of the standing orders underlining those rulings. I do not expect you to do so now, Mr Speaker, although I would welcome it. If you could circulate it, I would appreciate it.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fraser. In relation to the second point of order, which I believe was the one about tabling a document, I refer the member for Fraser to standing order 2, under the heading ‘Definitions’, where it refers to ‘document’. ‘It means a paper or any record of information and includes’:

(i)

anything on which there is writing;

(ii)

anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them—

and so on. I believe that is why I refused to entertain the point of order and suggested that the member could raise a question with me afterwards. That is the answer to the second part. I will look at the first part.