Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3545 ..
I have not received the kind of feedback from the community that Mrs Kikkert claims to have received. If members—
Mr Wall: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH: Can I finish answering the question, because I am actually coming directly to the point of the question—
Mr Wall: No. A point of order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Can you stop the clock.
Mr Wall: I would like to draw your attention to two standing orders, please: standing order 118(a), which states that the minister shall be directly relevant, and 118(b), which states that a minister shall not debate the subject matter to which the question refers.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. I think I heard before the point of order was raised, or during it, that you are coming directly to that question?
MS STEPHEN-SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying—
Mr Wall: Madam Speaker—
MADAM SPEAKER: Resume your seat.
Mr Wall: On that ruling, Madam Speaker, you failed to address the point of order regarding 118(b), which states that a minister shall not debate the subject matter to which the question refers. The first 90 seconds of her answer has been a debate around the subject matter, not an answer to the question.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question was around the policy, the rationale about it. She went to that.
Mr Wall: She treated people like second-class citizens, and has she apologised?
MADAM SPEAKER: Don't push me, Mr Wall. If you really want me to go to this, the standing orders say that the questions need to be concise, short, and that the supplementaries be on one single issue as well. Many supplementary questions go broader than that. Minister, I do ask you, for the peace and harmony of this place, to use your 10 seconds left, please.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH: Should I receive the kind of feedback that Mrs Kikkert claims to have received, I will address that directly with the people from whom that feedback is received.
MRS KIKKERT: Minister, what financial assistance is this government providing to multicultural groups whose ability to adequately fundraise was curtailed by this year's alcohol ban. If none, why not?