Parliamentary Procedure

Speaker's Ruling

The SPEAKER (19:30): During question time, the member for Stuart asked the Treasurer a question by way of a supplementary, and Hansard renders it this way:

Supplementary: does the minister agree with the head of GFG Alliance, Mr Sanjeev Gupta, who told the International Mining and Resources Conference in Melbourne yesterday that Australia has 'the highest cost energy environment in the world' and that South Australia has the most expensive electricity in the nation?

The ordinary plain meaning of that is that the final words 'and that South Australia has the most expensive electricity in the nation' is indirect speech—that is to say, the member for Stuart has finished the direct quote of Sanjeev Gupta but then he is effectively quoting by way of summary what Mr Sanjeev Gupta went on to say. I have spoken to the member for Stuart during the dinner adjournment and he says, no, he does not mean that.

He means that in regard to the words 'and that South Australia has the most expensive electricity in the nation', he is not attributing those words to Sanjeev Gupta. They are the member for Stuart's words, so although it may seem odd, the member for Stuart's question was: does the Treasurer agree with him, the member for Stuart, in the second leg? Could the member for Stuart just confirm that that is the correct construction of the question?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, Speaker. Thank you for bringing this issue back to us. The way you have described it is right. I looked at the draft Hansard. It accorded with the question I wrote and it accorded with what I believe I said. My intention in that was: does the Treasurer (or in this instance the Minister for Energy) accept what Mr Gupta said—and I was very careful to audibly open and close the quotes when I spoke, and Hansard picked that up—and also that South Australia has the highest electricity prices in the nation. Whether he chose those to be my words or just a fact in general or a theory that I was asking him to consider, yes: does he agree with A, clearly in quotes, and does he agree with B, clearly outside quotes?

The SPEAKER: The only problem is that an alternative interpretation of that is that it is indirect speech and the member for Stuart is summarising what Mr Sanjeev Gupta said, but in this instance the member for Stuart says he is not attributing that to Mr Sanjeev Gupta.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Correct, sir, and when you asked me in the hallway that was my direct answer straightaway because that was my intention. If I may, I think that the Treasurer did not hear that in the quote I said 'Australia' and in the second part I said 'South Australia'. I think he thought that I said 'South Australia' twice and that is what threw him off track.

The SPEAKER: That may be so.