The SPEAKER (14:46): I would like to rule in response to a point of order raised by the Manager of Opposition Business on 2 April. The point of order asked me to offer some latitude in considering the admissibility of constituency questions and adjournment debate matters. The member noted that when questions and matters are ruled out the community misses out on important information about government administration. I understand the member’s concerns, and I am always reluctant to rule out questions and matters. I will focus here on constituency questions because by and large adjournment matters have not been as problematic in recent times. I ask that members reflect on the criteria for constituency questions, particularly the requirements that a question must relate to constituency matters, must be a single question, must be capable of being responded to meaningfully in writing, should begin by specifying the minister and asking the question, with context to come afterwards, and must not seek an action. It is this last point that is most often the reason questions are ruled out. When members use phrasings such as ‘Can the minister advise’ or ‘I ask the minister to provide me with information’, they are requesting an action from the minister. In turn, I will intervene more actively at the time the member is asking the question where I detect issues to give members a chance to rephrase the question in accordance with the rules. This should result in fewer questions being ruled inadmissible and address the Manager of Opposition Business’s concern. I will ask the Deputy Speaker and the Acting Speakers to take the same approach.