Page 2011 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (3.35): Mr Speaker, the point that the Opposition is trying to make here is a very simple one. The Government should grasp it and should appreciate the point. The point is this: as a matter of simple courtesy the Government ought to advise the Opposition that it is going to make a ministerial statement and it should give the subject of the ministerial statement. You did that quite properly in relation to the environmental statement and the Opposition quite properly gave you leave. You indicated there would be another statement, subject or cause unknown, and the Opposition has taken the opportunity to object to that, to place on the record our firm request - and indeed insistence - for simple parliamentary courtesy. If the Government cares to investigate this matter with the officers of this house or the officers of any other house they will find that this is the invariable practice in both the Federal house and all other houses in Australia.
Mr Berry's reference to Mr Menzies and Mr Calwell was noteworthy because that is one of the few examples recorded in Federal Hansard where a government failed to advise the opposition of the subject of a ministerial statement. It is not much to ask - a simple courtesy, a simple notification of the subject of the ministerial statement.
We are not objecting to the Government making ministerial statements. They are generally important matters of Government business and they ought to be raised in the house. That is the purpose of a ministerial statement. The Opposition ought to be able to respond to them. That is the purpose of an opposition. It simply aids the efficient running of the house if ordinary parliamentary decency is complied with.
I believe that in the Federal house the standard practice is two hours' notice of the subject of a ministerial statement. It is not a lot to ask, Mr Speaker. It simply involves a telephone call. There would be very few circumstances, I would suggest, where the Government would be unable to provide two hours' notice, but in those rare circumstances this Opposition would be unlikely to criticise it. For example, the other day we had the Supreme Court decision on the Gowrie Hostel case - a matter of considerable importance to both the Government and the Opposition. That decision was handed down at 2.30 in the afternoon as question time started. Had Mr Collaery sought leave to make a statement on that matter the Opposition would have granted it to him. Clearly, we could not have expected Mr Collaery to give us advance notice of that decision because, not being a clairvoyant, he was not able to know what that decision would be.
It is a simple matter of courtesy. This Opposition is making the point very firmly that this parliamentary courtesy ought to be complied with because, like all other parliamentary practices and courtesies, it is designed to aid the efficient running of the house.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .