Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Why did the minister say in question time yesterday, that he has, 'No association with Jam Land Pty Limited', when ASIC documents show he has an interest in the company? The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Porter: The point of order is standing order 100B. That question has been asked and fully answered. Now what happens— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: No. Members on my left. Mr Porter: Mr Speaker, what happens— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: You don't need to plough on, Leader of the House. I'm going to make a point that I make regularly, and it shocks me that I'm obviously not being clear enough. If members want me to hear the point of order to rule on it, it's very important that they don't yell uncontrollably and then demand I rule on the point of order. It's your question time. There's a time limit to it, essentially, and I'm not in a rush. All right? Leader of the House. Mr Porter: Thank you for that time, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the member for Griffith asked a question that was a bit messy. It was a compound question; it had two parts. The first part sought confirmation that the minister had an interest in a company; the second part sought confirmation there had been or was some departmental investigation. The minister answered the second part first. He said he had no association—clearly meaning with the departmental investigation—and then he noted that he remained at arm's length from the company that was the subject of the question. There has never been any dispute that the minister has a relationship with the company and that is on the member's listed interests. The SPEAKER: I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke: First of all, the question is asking him to effectively reconcile statements yesterday with ASIC documents. That question is being asked for the first time. In terms of what his answer was yesterday, the sentence that appears in Hansard is, 'I have no association and have remained at arm's length at all times from the company, Jam Land.' Given that that was the statement— Mr Porter interjecting— Mr Burke: I'm sorry—the words 'in the investigation' have been added in the point of order that was just taken by the Leader of the House. They were not part of the quote that this question asks—and I'm quoting directly from the Hansard. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: Members on my left, I'm actually trying to listen to your Manager of Opposition Business. There are two issues here. Whether a question has been fully answered is not really for the chair to judge unless it's an identical question. I take the point that the Leader of the House is making that it's a very similar question. It is certainly the rule and indeed the practice that the question has to be absolutely identical—in other words, yesterday's question—for that to be the case. And then, if that were the case, yesterday's answer would have been deemed a full answer because the question has been answered. But it has not, so that question is in order. It's able to be asked, because it's different, but it's referring to yesterday's answer.