Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Rewording of Substantive Question

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning I submitted a question to your office—which turns out to be question No. 1 but reframed—which asks the Prime Minister, and was refused by your office, whether or not he had misled the House last week. That statement from the Prime Minister says he did, so why did your office rule out my question? That is what my point of order is about.

Well, certainly I am unaware of the discussion that took place between your office and the Office of the Clerk, except that it was finally resolved that the question would be asked as it has now been put on the Order Paper, and that is the way it is officially before this House.

Speaking further to my point of order, my point of order is why your office construed the question “Why did you mislead the House last week?”—something that was confirmed the next day by Mr Joyce—as “You can’t make an allegation of contempt.” Simply, that is fallacious advice, but we are forced to have to accept it. I want an explanation for it, because the Prime Minister has now confirmed what my question set out to prove.

I think there are two points to make. The first is that the questions are, in fact, your responsibility, Mr Speaker, not the responsibility of your office, and I think that should be made clear. All work that is done is on your behalf. But the second point—and I think it is a most important one—is that to commit a contempt someone has to allege a deliberate misleading of the House. My understanding is that the question did not indicate a deliberate misleading of the House, just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill misleading.

I thank the members. It is time now to move on.