Mr TANNER (3:35 PM) —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. For many years it has been customary for government members, when asking questions, to ask ministers whether there are any alternative policies, or words to that effect. I think that occurred on at least three occasions today. It has also been common when that has not been appended to a question that Speakers have ruled out of order any attempt by ministers to stray into commentary about opposition policies. Today the Acting Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a question about the government’s policies and actions with respect to Work Choices. He did not respond to the detail of the question about the government but in fact responded with criticism of the opposition’s policies. Several points of order were taken by opposition members and you ruled that the Prime Minister was in order. My question on this matter is whether it is no longer necessary for government members to append to their questions to ministers whether there are alternative policies—if they wish the ministers to comment on opposition policies—or whether in fact the position is that there is one rule for government members and another rule for opposition members.

The SPEAKER —I would say to the member for Melbourne in response to the first part of his question that, as he said, for some years now, going back quite a while, questions have sometimes included the final line ‘are there any alternatives’ or words to that effect. In relation to the second part of his question, the interpretation of standing order 104, in my view, has not altered. I refer him to House of Representatives Practice, which makes it quite clear what successive Speakers have ruled on the question of what is relevant. On the last point, that was rather offensive and the member for Melbourne should be careful if he starts to reflect on the chair.