QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ms LE (Fowler) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes announced in the May budget were significant and market-sensitive measures—so significant that your government has already walked parts of them back in recent days. Can the Prime Minister give the House a strong assurance that no government MP or their close relations used prior knowledge of those changes for private financial benefit before they were made public?

The SPEAKER: I'm not particularly happy with that regarding the standing orders and the imputations that were contained in that question. We don't want to go down a path where people are being accused of things or there are allegations in questions. There are some imputations in that question.

I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Member for Fowler, we'll get through this. Mr Burke: I know that there's normally some level of levity that's taken, but the rules are that the question can't contain argument, inference, imputation or insults.

It's all there. The SPEAKER: We'll deal with this, and then I'll give the member for Fowler the call. When you're saying things about whether MPs, the Prime Minister or their close relations are using prior knowledge, it's a dangerous path to go down.

Is the member for Fowler seeking to rephrase the question? Ms LE: I'm happy to rephrase the question. Can the Prime Minister give the House assurance that this information was properly safeguarded before the budget and was held so that no-one connected to or in government was able to act on it for private financial benefit?

The SPEAKER: I'll just ask the Prime Minister to ignore the last part of the question because that is not within the standing orders.