Wednesday, 8 March 2023

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:42): Can I thank –

Bev McArthur: On a point of order, President, I wonder if you would correct the Hansard of the response of Minister Tierney in relation to my question. I did ask whether she would support a ban on future exports of sheep and cattle, so she did not answer that part of the question.

A second point of order is that I believe she may have been misled in her answer about there being no sheep exported since 2018 and that there actually were sheep exported out of the Portland wharf in 2019 and certainly cattle. So maybe she would like to correct her answer.

The PRESIDENT: I think there is no point of order. It is not for anyone to determine how a minister answers a question. I would suggest with your first point of order, if you are not happy with what I am about to say, then you can call a point of order.

I was going to thank Minister Stitt, who will get a written response on her substantive answer to Mr Limbrick. I was going to thank the Leader of the Government, who is going to get Mr Puglielli a written response under the standing orders from the Minister for Health. That is all I was going to say. If anyone has got an issue with how I have interpreted the questions, now is the time to call a point of order.

Bev McArthur: On a point of order President, I would like to ask if you could review the minister’s answer in relation to my specific question, which was about supporting bans on future exports of sheep and also cattle from Victoria.

The PRESIDENT: I am confident that the minister answered the substantive question. I think it was all a bit clunky, including by me, the way that was proceeded with. But I am happy to review the supplementary and get back to the chamber if I was wrong on that.

Gayle Tierney: Further to the point of order, President, in terms of my response to the supplementary question, it was in relation to your comment, which was that the minister should answer that question as she sees fit. I saw fit to stick to the subject, and the subject was sheep exportation.

Georgie Crozier: Further to the point of order, President, and just to seek some clarification, when Mrs McArthur asked the question, the minister stood up and basically said the member was wrong. I am just wondering whether the minister has inadvertently or deliberately misled the house in relation to her response to the substantive. That is why I think Mrs McArthur is asking for you to review it, because the minister made it clear that there have been no sheep exports since 2018. Clearly that is wrong, given what Mrs McArthur has subsequently said, and that is why we ask that you review it.

The PRESIDENT: Can I dispatch this one. If someone wants to move a substantive motion about someone that they believe has misled the house, they are free to. The minister has a right to answer the question as she sees fit, and we cannot ask her to answer in the way anyone would like her to answer it. As for the minister’s point of order, I originally ruled on the point of order. What I will do, which I am more than happy to do, is review in Hansard the supplementary question, and if my ruling was wrong I will get back to the house.

Gayle Tierney: On the point of order, President, the advice I have got is that it was 2018. I am happy to go back and check with the department as to whether it was 2018 or 2019, but the fact remains that there is not any sheep exportation for –

Members interjecting.

Georgie Crozier: On the point of order, President, I just ask that you uphold your own rulings, with the minister not debating, understanding that –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. I would like everyone in the chamber not to use points of order as a way of debating an issue.