Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answer in which he claimed he had declared his interest in Jam Land according to the rules. How does the minister explain an FOI decision by his department on 23 August 2019 and the answer given to a question on notice from his department also dated August 2019 which states it has no record of any declaration by the minister? Mr Porter: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER: I will just hear from the Leader of the House on this— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is entitled to raise a point of order, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. The Manager of Opposition Business does so regularly without being admonished. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: I will wait until you finish. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: I don't know who your conversation is with but until it stops I am not going to hear from the Leader of the House. Mr PORTER: I think it's with his conscience. The SPEAKER: I think I better call the Leader of the House. Mr PORTER: It's with respect to the well-known exception to the rule in 98C relating to statements made by ministers that may have occurred previously, which questions can be asked in relation to. But it appears the question is in relation to an FOI statement, which is not a statement of the minister made previously and therefore would be out of order. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is interjecting regularly, is particularly loud. You're injuring my left ear. I'd prefer you didn't interject but if you have to, maybe the whip will assign you another seat where you're less provocative. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke: The question at the start refers to a specific statement that the minister has made to the House. The reference to the FOI points to that statement being untrue, so it is completely appropriate that a minister is able to be asked. It's not like we've simply said 'refer to previous answers' in the general. We have gone specifically to a claim he made that is contradicted by a decision of his department. The SPEAKER: Can I hear the question again? I thank the member for Griffith. Ms BUTLER: My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. I refer to the minister's previous answer in which he claimed he declared his interest in Jam Land according to the rules. How does the minister explain an FOI decision by his department on 23 August 2019 and the answer to a question on notice from his department also dated August 2019 which stated it has no record of any declaration by the minister? The SPEAKER: I will just hear from the Leader of the House again. Mr Porter: The minister's previous statement is with respect to the standard disclosure that he, like all of us, is required to do as a member of parliament. At the very least, what the question does is contain an inference about a statement made by a department, which, by the way, is not the minister's department. But, with respect to a standard which all of us are required to submit to, in that sense, the question is clearly out of order. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business just briefly. Mr Burke: With respect to the issue of the declaration, we're referring to a specific statement that the minister made in the House, not to the declaration—that's separate to that. With respect to the department, I'd simply draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that it is the minister's department that has made this decision. The SPEAKER: I'll rule on this now so that we can— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER: Whoever that was, you're not being helpful. I take the point the Leader of the House is making but, given the linkage to the minister's previous answer, I will allow the question, and obviously he can answer it in the way he sees fit, given what he has said in his previous answer. The minister has the call.