Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer in relation to the inappropriate purchase of watches by Christine Holgate: 'I was appalled', 'it's disgraceful' and 'not on'. He also said, if she didn't stand aside, 'she can go'. If the Prime Minister is willing to condemn the inappropriate purchase of watches, why won't he stand in this place and condemn the dangerous disinformation about COVID spread by the member for Hughes?

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

I think we have the same problem as yesterday, and that question—

Honourable members interjecting—

Well, you can debate it across the chamber, member for Sydney, or I can rule.

Ms Burney interjecting—

The member for Barton. I'll be as brief as I can—I won't say I'll be very brief; I don't want to mislead the House! As I said yesterday, it is very clear under the Practice that questions can only ask the Prime Minister or ministers about their direct ministerial responsibilities. Whilst the member for Hindmarsh has referred to a previous answer, as I've said before, that would enable a question to go to the Prime Minister's statements in that answer, not simply ask another question—and another question which is out of order. I did undertake to the House yesterday to have a look at all of the precedents that are stated in Practice. I can assure you I did. There are a number of them that are there, and I can read through them in the Hansards from 1964 right through until the early 2000s and through more recent years. All Speakers have upheld the principle I did yesterday, so the question is not in order.