Personal Explanations — Immigration—Morning Report Interview

I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of an answer I gave in an interview on Morning Report this morning.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want it clarified. Just getting up and saying—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I am entitled to raise a point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: You may raise a point of order after I have ruled. I want to rule first.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: You have just ruled.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I have, but there is no room in the Standing Orders to give reasons for objecting. Any member is entitled, under our system, to object and a member has done so. That is perfectly valid.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling. I am well aware of it. I am also aware that the House likes to give members the opportunity to make personal explanations and does not normally give an opportunity to explain something that was not said in the House. There are members here who do not listen to State radio, so I have no idea what the member is referring to. If I had a bit of an idea what the subject was, I could then decide whether the business of the House should be interrupted in order to correct things that appear on the “Morning Moan”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As objection has been taken, we come to questions for oral answer.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is in the same vein—just to get better clarification from you about the use of the Standing Order that allows personal explanations to be made. A personal explanation was made yesterday by the Hon Steve Maharey, related to the way in which he had answered a question during question time the day before. He did that as a Minister. He did that backed up by the full weight of his ministerial department, and his staff who operate with him in the Beehive. The same position exists for the Hon Lianne Dalziel. As Ministers, they are making mistakes when they are supposed to be giving answers consistent with the public good. Surely it would be far better that they used the mechanism available to them without recourse to the House—that of a ministerial statement.

The mechanism of using a personal explanation to correct an answer given in the House has been in existence for a very long time and used by successive Governments for very good reasons. Indeed, I seem to recollect a Speaker’s ruling that when a Minister makes a mistake in giving an answer, then he or she should as soon as possible seek to correct that mistake by coming to the House and seeking to make a personal explanation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct. This is in danger of becoming a debate on the request for a personal explanation. Any member is entitled to ask the House for leave for anything. Any member is entitled to deny it. The member asked for leave; a member denied it—that is within the Standing Orders.