Ms MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services. Does the minister recall a briefing provided by her department to me on 10 September at which her senior adviser was present? Is it a fact that officials advised both your senior adviser and me that elderly Australians would be required to pay an average of $26,000 to enter a nursing home? Will the minister now confirm in this House that elderly Australians, including veterans and TPIs, will be required to pay on average $26,000 to enter a nursing home?

Mrs MOYLAN —I first would like to address the meeting that my department and one of my senior advisers had with the shadow minister. I was not present at that particular meeting, but I will again advise the opposition of the details of the government's entry contribution policy. The entry contribution is not compulsory, and the contribution that is paid is negotiated between the provider and the resident.

My department advises me that the basis which they have estimated the raising of $130 million in the full year is on 45 per cent of all residents who are in nursing homes for longer than a six-month period paying an entry contribution fee. It will be a drawdown of $2,600 per annum for a total of five years—a total sum of $13,000. That is irrespective of what the entry contribution fee being charged is. So it is a total sum of $13,000 for any resident who is paying an entry contribution fee. That is the basis on which my department made the calculation.

Ms MACKLIN —Mr Acting Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Did her adviser tell her the average was $26,000?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I will allow the family—

Mr Reith —Mr Acting Speaker, I invite you to consider my point of order. This question is not supplementary to the answer. This question is clearly a repeat of the first question. Furthermore, this shadow minister has been asking exactly the same question for the last week. It is clearly not supplementary. It is clearly well beyond the bounds of the Speaker's ruling.

Mr Beazley —Mr Acting Speaker, further to that point of order: as you well know, as I well know and as the Leader of the House ought to well know, the question of discretion with regard to the answering of supplementaries is absolute, as far as you are concerned. Thus far in question time you have heard a number of questions offered as supplementaries, and you have rejected them all. We have not challenged the rejections.

Mr Costello —Oh, and how many did you allow in 13 years?

Mr Beazley —We have not challenged the rejections when you have made them. I would respectfully submit to you that you are quite correct in calling the supplementary on this occasion as the only one that you permit in this question time.

Mr Reith —Mr Acting Speaker, on a further point of order, to pick up the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition: as it is clear to those who have been here for some time, the idea of irregularity does not encompass having a supplementary question after virtually every question.

Mr Beazley —We have not.

Mr Reith —You have. I am not keeping count, Mr Acting Speaker; there have been so many I have lost count.

Mr Richard Evans —There were six.

Mr Reith —There were six, I am advised by interjection. I refer you to the words of the Speaker, who says:

However, I do not see a situation arising where I will permit a supplementary question to be asked after every original question. It will be a more irregular occurrence.

By their display today, that ruling is clearly being flouted by the opposition, and you should not give them a supplementary question.

Mr Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Speaker, further to the point of order on the question of repetition, which was the first point of order raised by the Leader of the House: I remind the Acting Speaker that the original question asked of the minister was `is it a fact that officials advised her senior adviser and our shadow minister'? The supplementary question was quite different. The supplementary question was `did her department advise the minister'? It grew out of the answer and was appropriately supplementary to it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —I have had enough points of order on this, and I do point out to the House that Mr Speaker Halverson has said that they will be irregular. I would say to all of you that the number of supplementary questions asked today—that is the relevant point—has been irregular. I have rejected most. I have allowed the one to the Minister for Family Services.

Mrs MOYLAN —I have nothing further to add to the answer that I have given the shadow minister.