Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept yesterday’s ruling, but I am referring to Standing Order 111. You ruled that my question was outside Standing Orders because there is, presumably, “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Now, I have had two independent experts go through all the cases relating to Mr Peters, and I have also shown them my questions. They are completely flummoxed as to how, in any way, shape, or form, my questions could impinge on those cases other than my mentioning the name “Winston Peters”. I also tried to ring you yesterday to seek clarification about what questions I could or could not ask, because I realised you were at a disadvantage yourself, not knowing what the case was, or where my questions breached the sub judice rule, and I am wondering whether you have any way that you could [Interruption]—the member can interrupt as much as he likes—enlighten me by giving me the parameters, even by describing the case and the features of the case that is before the courts that my question impinged on.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I did consider the matter very seriously, and of course I took advice. I have given my ruling, and I hope the member has the opportunity to be able to study it at his leisure.