QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (14:17): My question is to the Treasurer. The day after the budget, the Treasurer was asked by Peter Stefanovic if he negatively gears any properties, and the Treasurer said, 'I don't, Pete, no. I did maybe a decade ago or something like that.' Can the Treasurer explain to Australians why it's fair for him to benefit from negative gearing and then rip up the same opportunity for millions of aspirational Australians?

The SPEAKER: Order! The imputation in that question wasn't particularly within the standing orders. Reflecting on a member in such a way, regarding his own financial benefit, is barely within the standing orders.

But out of respect for the member for Flinders— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER: Yes. I think we'll hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order because I'm not comfortable with the tone of the question. The subject matter is important, so I want to find a way that we can have this question answered.

Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, under page 555 of Practice, it's not in order for questions to be reflecting on the private affairs of a minister. That's entirely what this question does. The SPEAKER: Let's hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

We may find a way with the question being rephrased, like we did last week with another question in that vein. But we'll find a way. Mr Tehan: Speaker, last week you allowed questions to be asked of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing about their arrangements because they contained a contemporary hook to their portfolio responsibilities.

This question is similarly constructed. I also note the ruling Speaker Smith gave about these types of questions on 15 October 2015. Questions are not permitted purely about a minister's or prime minister's private affairs.

There needs to be a connection with their responsibilities. I have listened very carefully, and that connection has been made on this question. That's exactly what this question did.

We made sure that it did, because this is all about— The SPEAKER: Okay. We don't need to go into analysis. Mr Tehan: I'm happy to go into the analysis, but I won't.

The SPEAKER: I'm aware of that ruling. Where we intersect on page 178 is discretionary powers of the chair, which can always deal with some of these topics. I'm not happy with the imputation, just as I wasn't last week, but we're going to allow it.

I remind the House that it's a bit of a dangerous slope to go down for everyone in the House if we're going to open this can of worms up. It is not within the dignity of the House to go to the specific financial matters of any individual member of the House. Language is important, but the manager is correct.

There is a policy area that the Treasurer is responsible for, so I'm going to be very broad with allowing the Treasurer's response in light of what I've just said.