Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Minister for Aged Care) (4:08 PM) —Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I am seeking leave to do so, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Aged Care does not as yet have the call. It would strike me that there are a number of members who are already abusing the forms of the House. The Prime Minister quite clearly moved that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.

Mr SPEAKER —If I were to deal with the member for Prospect in the same even-handed way as I have dealt with the member for Chifley, she would no longer be in the chamber. Does the Minister for Aged Care claim to have been misrepresented?

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Yes, I do, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Aged Care may proceed.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I claim to have been misrepresented by two members of the opposition: firstly, the member for Jagajaga and, secondly, the member for Grayndler. The misrepresentation was as follows: it was that (a) I had power to make any decision with regard to accreditation. I do not have such a power and I did not attempt to intervene—

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is not claiming to be misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER —If I were to hear the minister do other than make a personal explanation, I would require her to resume her seat.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —As I said, I had no such power and I did not make any such decision concerning accreditation. Secondly, there was an implication that I would respond to a donation in making such a—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Oh, it is amazing, isn't it? Such false indignation!

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I want to raise two points of order with regard to this. One is that the minister is purporting to respond to the member for Grayndler.

Government members interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.

Mr McMullan —The minister said she was responding to the member for Grayndler. You cannot allow a procedure whereby a minister can reply to a question which you have ruled out of order and not allowed to be concluded. Secondly, if I understood your ruling with regard to the question, it was that you implied in some way that it was an implication with regard to a person outside the House. Had it been referring to the minister, it would have been in order. Therefore, you cannot both allow her to have a personal explanation about the question and rule the question out of order.

Mr SPEAKER —I indicate to the Manager of Opposition Business that I have listened closely to what the minister was saying. Her response to the first misrepresentation was entirely in order, because in fact she was indicating that there had been a suggestion that she had power that she does not have. She cannot respond to the question which has been ruled out of order.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Mr Speaker, I was also misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech when he alleged that I had responded to a donation being made to a political party, and I did not. He drew together the misrepresentation—

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order: as you well know, because you listened to my speech extremely carefully, my complaint was about not being able to ask questions on that matter, not an allegation. In those circumstances, she is not responding on a personal explanation where she has been misrepresented.

Mr Lee —Mr Speaker, on two occasions the minister has accused the Leader of the Opposition of being a grub—I do not know whether you heard that—and I would ask you to consider whether that is parliamentary language.

Mr SPEAKER —If the minister has any further personal explanation, I will hear her, but she cannot refer to the question which I have ruled out of order.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I am not referring to the question; I am referring to the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition in his dissertation.

Mr SPEAKER —I beg your pardon. The member for Dobell raised the question of unparliamentary language.

Mr Lee —Do you intend to rule on that point of order, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER —I would ask the minister to withdraw any inference she made about the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I withdraw that, Mr Speaker. I would like to return to the point I was making of having been misrepresented.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Didn't you listen?

Mr SPEAKER —The minister is addressing her remarks through the chair.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I am referring to the misrepresentation by the Leader of the Opposition during his dissertation. The fact of the matter was that he implied that there was a connection—

Mr SPEAKER —Leader of the Opposition, I am listening very closely to the minister. To date, she has not indicated what the implication was or what it was related to, and it would be quite improper for me to rule in any way at all.

Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —He made an implication that there was a connection between a donation and me making a decision. I neither had the power nor did I make any such decision.

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I constantly argued about not whether or not there was but whether it was legitimate to ask that question. Right through that speech—

Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have indicated that in fact it is not proper for the minister to claim to have been misrepresented on an issue on which I had ruled a question out of order. I would, however, point out to the House, as I hope they are all well aware, that it is perfectly in order, as has been mentioned during the debate, for the member for Grayndler to put his question on notice and the minister to respond to it in that form

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —I simply want to say with regard to the second misrepresentation—

Mr SPEAKER —The minister does not have the call.