Wednesday, 22 February 2023

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:34): As far as today’s questions go, for Mr Davis’s second supplementary question to Minister Shing, she was going to get further information.

David Davis interjected.

The PRESIDENT: I will finish the other ones and then I will come to you, if that is okay. Mr Puglielli is going to get a response from the Minister for Mental Health via the Leader of the Government in line with the standing orders. Similarly, Mr Erdogan is going to get Ms Purcell two responses to both her questions, substantive and supplementary, from the Minister for Racing. Minister Shing is going to get the answer to the question and supplementary from Ms Copsey from the Minister for Outdoor Recreation.

David Davis: On a couple of points of order, President, in relation to my question to the minister regarding Rivervue and the issues around Rivervue, one of the questions sought – it was very direct – whether Melbourne Water or their contractors had surveyed the floor levels, and the minister did not answer that question. She answered generically. It was not a generic question. It was about the specific action of an agency that she has responsibility for about a specific property. She talked generally.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, President, I would invite Mr Davis to actually have a look at Hansard, whereby there were general and indeed specific comments made in answer to that question, and remind Mr Davis again of the standing order that indicates that a member cannot be directed as to how they answer a question.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, I believe that Minister Shing did answer the question. In this case I am happy to review Hansard myself. If I determine that I am wrong, I will get back to the house.

David Davis: On a further point of order, President, on the supplementary to the earlier question to the Minister for Water, I asked whether the minister had received briefings about the Rivervue Retirement Village and the removal of the flood overlay and so forth. I asked whether she had received briefings. She did not answer that question either.

The PRESIDENT: Once again, Mr Davis, I believe the minister did answer the question. The issue that I had was that the substantive question was about an administration of government that this minister did not hold eight years previously, so my concern is how far we can go back – can we go 18 years, can we go 28 years back – before a minister has responsibility. In that case, I believe the minister did answer the question, given the substantive question.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, President – I do not want to debate this issue but just to clarify – Mr Davis was not talking about years ago. He was talking about the floods that occurred on 14 October last year, 2022, so it was not in relation to responsibilities from years ago. I am just making that point around what the question actually was. I am happy to provide it to you so you have got greater clarification.

Harriet Shing: Further to the point of order, President, that is not the way that the question was asked. Ms Crozier, you may infer meaning from the way in which you thought Mr Davis asked the question. That certainly was not what the chamber received when he presented that question to me.

The PRESIDENT: I think we have ended up debating the point of order. I have ruled on that particular one. I have committed to reviewing the first point of order.

Ann-Marie Hermans: On a point of order, President, in terms of the question about the registration numbers of the aircraft, the reason that that is a valid question is because by understanding what the registrations of the aircraft are – the question was not answered – we can actually determine whether there really were these aircraft that went out.

The PRESIDENT: The minister did answer the question. She cannot be directed how to answer the question, but she did answer that question.