Mr NEVILLE(6.13 p.m.) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield) —Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NEVILLE —I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed.

Mr NEVILLE —In a press release issued today by the shadow minister for sport and tourism, the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), I was misrepresented in a number of ways. As my colleagues have just pointed out, there was no motion to debate the core issue; it was a procedural motion. As the former Speaker would know, this is a regulation and there are procedures which the House can undertake to debate that matter at a later date.

Also, in paragraph 5, there is reference to a gang of five. I know of no such gang of five. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will also note that there is another part in this press release that says `where they had claimed variously that they would cross the floor'. I do not know what is meant by that. I have been consistent throughout this issue in saying that it is a matter for negotiation and it is not a time to take entrenched positions.

Mr Martin —You are debating it now.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield) —Order! You cannot debate the point. This is a personal explanation.

Mr NEVILLE —Finally, it says here:

It is a question of saying one thing for local consumption and doing something else in Canberra where they think their actions can be hidden.

I have been totally consistent in this matter in Canberra, in Brisbane and in my electorate.

Mr Martin —I move that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Leichhardt, the member for Dawson, the member for Capricornia, the member for Hinkler and the member for Herbert—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! You are out of order. It has to relate to the legislation that is being discussed at the moment.

Mr Kerr —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have indicated that a suspension of standing orders must be relevant to the appropriation bills before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is true.

Mr Kerr —It is my understanding of standing orders, and we are researching it now, that it is incumbent on any member at any stage to ask that the standing orders of the House be suspended to permit a debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is the point of order? I will rule on it.

Mr Kerr —My point of order is that it is in order for the member to ask that standing orders be suspended to allow a debate on this matter. Plainly, debate in this House has been suspended by your liberty in allowing these spurious personal explanations. The question is: is there to be a debate?

Government members interjecting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I have heard the point of order. I will now give a ruling on the point of order. House of Representatives Practice states:

Speaker Jenkins clarified the matter and explained the position he intended to adopt on 27 March 1984: the correct interpretation and application of the standing order required that a motion without notice to suspend standing orders could only be moved (a) when other business was before the House if the motion was relevant to the item before the House at the time or (b) when there was no business before the House, that is, between items of business. This reflects the current practice of the House.

I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr Kerr —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on another point of order. If you are to take literally the rule of Speaker Jenkins, at the present stage this House is hearing personal explanations and, because we are between items of business, that is, two matters of personal explanation, the business of the House is suspended and it is perfectly in order for a motion to be moved to suspend standing orders to deal with the business before the House. The business before the House plainly is these spurious personal explanations. That is the business before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the member resume his seat. I have already ruled on that point of order. It is not relevant to the States Grants (General Purpose) Amendment Bill 1996.