Mr LEE —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the decision in the budget to direct recoveries made under the proceeds of crime legislation into general revenue rather than to public health and, in particular, drug education programs, as was the case under the previous government. Does the minister share the opinion of the government that it is spending too much money on drug education; and, if not, why have drug education programs been cut back in this way?

Mr WILLIAMS —Let us get the facts straight. The present arrangement in relation to the confiscated assets trust fund, which is administered under the Proceeds of Crime Act, is that half of the residue is allocated to drug education and drug strategy measures and that the other half is devoted to law enforcement measures.

What is proposed under the budget is that there will be the retention of the existing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states for the sharing of proceeds of joint operations; there will be an introduction of international Commonwealth sharing arrangements for joint operations involving international agencies; and there will be a commitment of a fixed sum to drug strategies out of the residue and the balance, which was previously committed to either some drug strategy or law enforcement, will go into consolidated revenue.

So this will enable the government to devote specific funds to specific purposes and not have funds in a general fund which is not appropriated in any way. It is a more efficient management of money.

Mr LEE —I have a supplementary question that arises from the minister's answer.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Just resume your seat for a moment. It may assist the House if I address what I perceive to be some misconceptions concerning the asking of supplementary questions. One misconception is related to the frequency of supplementary questions being asked. A belief appears to have developed that the chair will allow a supplementary question to be answered on a irregular basis. This became apparent yesterday when five supplementary questions were asked arising from eight initial questions coming from the opposition and the first four supplementary questions were not allowed.

The Leader of the Opposition is recorded as indicating that the question of the chair's discretion with regard to the answering of supplementary questions is absolute. I agree with that statement but add that the chair's discretion with the asking of supplementary questions is also absolute.

Another misconception relates to the purpose of supplementary questions. Standing order 151 indicates that they are to elucidate an answer. On this basis, supplementary questions should arise out of a minister's answer. Thus, I would not expect to allow a supplementary question to a question which, in my opinion, was fully answered. Normally, I would not allow a supplementary question to a minister who had referred the first question to another minister, as a referral of this kind does not constitute an answer.

I add that, during the time I have been Acting Speaker, I have allowed 15 supplementary questions to be asked and, of these, six have proceeded to answer. I consider that the honourable member's question has been fully answered and I will not hear the supplementary question.