Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:34): I've already made a comprehensive and detailed statement in the House, earlier today. I tell you: the frustration of the farmers with this listing was clear in 2014, in a table that I documented earlier today as part of that comprehensive statement. The National Farmers Federation— The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a second. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. Mr Albanese: It goes to relevance. We've got the letter in 2014. This is about any constituent correspondence; any at all will do. Was there a single person who wrote to him about this prior to the meeting? The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members will cease interjecting. I'll just make a couple of points from the Practice that are relevant for the Leader of the Opposition—even for the question that was asked, I have to say. The Practice makes very clear that questions can elicit a yes/no answer, and that's a classic example of it, but that that can't be demanded of the minister. I'm listening to the minister. He's not 30 seconds into his answer yet. If you need me to pull out the page of the Practice, I will, but it's very clear in there. There's a long history of questions inviting a yes or no answer. Invite as you may, you can't demand a yes or no. I need to listen to the minister to check that he's being relevant. I appreciate the question. Obviously there are other sections of the Practice that relate to not identifying constituents, but we're not at that point. The Leader of the House, on a point of order. Mr Porter: In addition to that, it must have been the case that any correspondence or any oral representations went not in the position as a minister. They went from constituents to a member of parliament. At that stage, he did not have ministerial responsibility. Ms Bird interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Cunningham is warned! I'm sorry, Leader of the House, could you just repeat that last bit? Mr Porter: The representations that went from constituents did not go to the member in his capacity as a minister, because he didn't have the relevant portfolio. They went in his capacity as a member of parliament representing on a local issue. The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on that point of order. Mr Burke: On that point: the question begins by referring to the minister's earlier answers. Whether it's relevant to someone's current portfolio or not, once they have made a statement while in the current portfolio we are allowed to question that statement, which is specifically referred to both in your own rulings and in the Practice. The SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Porter: That relies on some previous reference by the minister to earlier correspondence. I certainly don't recall such a thing having occurred. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Do members on my left wish me to actually address the point of order or just watch them interject for 15 seconds? I've listened to both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. The point the Manager of Opposition Business made is right, and I've ruled that way several times: a minister can't be questioned about any of their previous portfolio responsibilities until such time as they address them, and once that's been done—that's why questions do refer to a minister's previous answers. I've ruled numerous times in accordance with those precedents. I think it's fine for the question to be asked. Obviously, the manner in which it's been asked is a matter for the minister in how he seeks to deal with that. Mr TAYLOR: In my statement earlier today in the House, I said that in late 2016 and early 2017 I spoke with farmers from Boorowa and Goulburn, in my electorate, and Yass, which had been in Hume until mid-2016, about this listing and their concerns about the listing. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: Can I get the minister to pause for a second. This is precisely why I wanted to hear the minister. He is being directly relevant to the question. Unless you let me listen to him, I can't make that judgement. He is being directly relevant to the question. Mr TAYLOR: On 21 February 2017 I spoke with a farmer near Yass who expressed strong and detailed concerns about the revised listing, pointing out that it had occurred despite the concerns of the National Farmers Federation and the NSW Farmers Association and with little consultation with the farmers themselves. A letter from the National Farmers Federation to the department back in 2014 typified and laid out very clearly the frustration of the farm sector in response to the proposed adjustment to listing under the EPBC Act. They made it very clear that the evidence supporting the listing is not sufficiently robust. This was of deep concern to farmers across my electorate and across the region. I stood up for them, and the member for Eden-Monaro failed to do what he should have done.