Page 1392 - Week 07 - Thursday, 24 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: No, I am not. I am reflecting on the style of debate and the high moral tone that was taken unanimously or universally by members opposite on a particular matter, and I compare that with their cavalier dismissal of a matter which concerns all of the staff of this Assembly. I compare that with the kind of manipulation that has gone on this afternoon to waste the time of this Assembly and then to fail to deal with a matter of the greatest importance.
It has been a very, very sad day, and I think that, if this is to be the trend in the Assembly, then members opposite really ought to reflect upon why they are here and whether they really want to get on with the business that affects the people of Canberra or merely the business that affects them and their friends.
Use of Question Time
MR WOOD (5.37): Mr Speaker, I too will use the adjournment debate as an opportunity to continue the debate that we have had today that we did not really need to have. I use the pronoun "we" because I include myself. I did also speak earlier. I want to give some advice to you, my colleagues, as I regard you in this chamber. If you have a question you want to ask a Minister that seeks to put the Minister on the spot, ask that question without notice. That is your right and it is an important part of this chamber.
There is another sort of question, and it is one where you seek routine information. You can put that on notice and get an answer in due course, or you can give a note to the Minister in the morning and say, "I will ask you this question today". If you give this notice you will get a detailed answer, the sort of answer that you cannot expect if you just give it without due notice, when the Minister cannot reasonably be expected to know that sort of detail. That is open, as it is in the Federal Parliament, to all members. I suggest that from time to time you may care to use it, as I do.
Secondly, I want to recommend to my colleagues the use of the point of order. I do not think we do ourselves any good by jumping up and down like jack-in-the-boxes, as we have today. A point of order ought to be seen as a specific reference to procedures. You ought in future to refer to a standing order by number. A point of order is not to be taken as a part of the debate and simply to respond to some item in the debate. I would say - I hope you agree with me - that we were fortunate today in the afternoon session that members of the media were not present. We did not really need to carry on as we did.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for that, Mr Wood. I concur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .