Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (14:18): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister please update the House on the savings delivered to householders and businesses in my electorate of Petrie from the repeal of the carbon tax. Are there any threats to these savings? The SPEAKER: The Member for Hotham on a point of order. Ms O'Neil: Mr Speaker, I refer to page 555 of the Practice. It is very clearly stated in the Practice: … it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies, for which they are not responsible. I would ask you to rule the latter part of that question out of order. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will cease interjecting, particularly on me. This came up yesterday. I am going to address this matter without interjection and we are not going to revisit it after each question. The member for Hotham raised a point of order similar to some points of order that were raised yesterday. There are two points for members opposite to consider. The question did not specifically ask about opposition policies, it asked about alternatives. As I said yesterday, Speaker Jenkins, in February 2008, indicated that he did not like that practice. He did indicate that, but when he indicated that, he did also acknowledge that that traditionally was the practice—to ask for alternatives or any threats to a particular policy. He indicated that. The reference in Practice is footnoted and it refers specifically to Speaker Jenkins. Indeed, if you go back and look at Hansard you will find numerous examples of questions that were in order that asked whether there were any alternatives or any threats. It has been the practice for a very long time, and some of us who have been here in different capacities know that. Indeed, in 2000 Speaker Andrew, when asked about this, said: I do not think it inappropriate if a member identifies an area within a minister's official responsibility and asks a question relating to alternative views, as the key consideration is the government's response to these views. That is the practice I am adopting. Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the point of order. In referring to that, can I ask that you refer specifically to standing order 98? Standing order 98(c) makes clear what a minister can be questioned about. You have not referred to the reason why Speaker Jenkins made that ruling. The reason the ruling was made is that a minister can only be questioned— Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will cease interjecting. I am trying to listen to the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Standing order 98(c) says: A Minister can only be questioned on the following matters, for which he or she is responsible or officially connected— That cannot involve opposition policy. They cannot be responsible for opposition policy— The SPEAKER: No, resume your seat. Ms Henderson interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. If the question, as I said at the outset—I am not going to revisit this—had referred to an opposition policy you would have a point, but it referred to alternatives. This has been a longstanding practice, and the minister is responsible for the environment and he is entitled to speak about the government's policy and any alternatives as part of his responsibility as minister.