Page 1088 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: I dare say the Chief Minister will be lenient with the time at the normal end of question time and give us a few more minutes.
Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, on a point of order. Standing order 117, part (c) says:
Questions shall not ask Ministers:
(i) for an expression of opinion.
I do not think that that is a discretionary matter. It also says, at 117(b)(ii), that questions shall not contain arguments. I would ask you what Mr Stevenson's question did contain, if not arguments. It is clearly out of order.
MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, Mr Stevenson's question asked me whether I was concerned. It did not ask for a matter of opinion. It asked me a specific question and I would like to answer it, if the squirming members opposite would give me half a chance.
Mr Connolly: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: The power to ask questions comes from standing order 114, which says:
Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which that Minister is officially connected.
Can the Chief Minister advise how what the Federal Government may or may not be doing in regard to electronic advertising is part of his portfolio? I would suggest that it is no part of his official responsibilities. Therefore the question is out of order.
MR KAINE: Since Mr Connolly has asked me another question, Mr Speaker, I would like to answer that one too.
MR SPEAKER: Order! To give a ruling on the points of order raised on this issue, I believe that Mr Kaine, as Chief Minister in charge of the Territory, has a wide-ranging responsibility and I would ask the Chief Minister to answer the question. Please proceed.
MR KAINE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I really think that Mr Stevenson has the answer to his question, as demonstrated by these members opposite who will do anything to defend the position put forward by the Labor Government at the Federal level. It perhaps indicates that, if they had half a chance, they would impose the same constraints here that Mr Hawke would impose on the nation. Quite obviously we have here, first of all, a constraint on freedom of speech. I would argue that any political party has not only a right but also a responsibility to put its viewpoint and to express its policies leading up to an election. And a government has a responsibility to defend its record leading up to an election. But what is the Federal Labor Government purporting to do? It is purporting to put constraints on how this can be done.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .