Mr McMULLAN (3:31 PM) —Mr Speaker, I ask you to report to the House on circumstances arising from the ruling you made with regard to the Leader of the Opposition’s last question, where he raised queries about the fitness for office of a person who had been appointed to the Reserve Bank board. The effect of your ruling, literally applied, would be that it is impossible in this House to ask a question about the fitness for office of people appointed by a minister other than in the most general terms. It would mean that, if one had information of criminality or impropriety by an appointee, one could not ask a minister why that person had been appointed. I understand the difficulty under the standing orders, and I am not reflecting on that—although I do not agree with the interpretation you made, I do know it is a difficult matter—but I would ask you to report to the House on how we might pursue such matters and still be consistent with the ruling or otherwise to reconsider the ruling.

The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Fraser. As he would be aware, standing order 100 states:

The member would be aware that an earlier question along similar lines did not name an individual and that accordingly the question was allowed to stand. The question that he is referring to was critical of an individual. Accordingly, I ruled either that the question go on the Notice Paper, as the standing orders specify, or—and I gave the Leader of the Opposition this option—that the question be rephrased in a way that would be acceptable. I think that ruling is consistent with previous rulings that I and other occupants of the chair have given.