Page 4046 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He says, in fact, that the theme of the questioning was "How many additional staff will there be?" and he was answering that. I have looked at the Hansard. There were only two pages previous to the question that was asked that is now in contention. There is, in fact, on those previous two pages - that is, specifically, pages 749 and 750 - no question that I can see about staffing at all. The question on the top of page 751 about additional staff was the first and only question about staffing that was asked of Mr Connolly, that I can discern, in that session on that day. He might find some other question; I certainly could not see it there. That is the first and only question. But now he says, "This was the theme. This had been the overriding theme which was clouding my vision and that was the question I was answering".
That does not really add up, Mr Connolly. If there is only one question, it hardly constitutes a theme which permeates the whole of the questioning that you are facing and constitutes the basis on which you answered all subsequent questions, apparently, in that general area by answering that one particular theme. I might also point out that, as Mr Berry, I think, admitted, the general theme in questioning throughout the period of the Estimates Committee so far has not been what additional staff is the Government going to have to meet; it is what staff reductions are there going to be. That has been the theme of questioning in the Estimates Committee. What staff reductions are going ahead?
That is the question that Mr Jensen, the chairman, was in fact asking on this occasion, at least in part, and that is the question that Mr Connolly answered by saying, "No, no". You cannot have it both ways.
Ms Follett: It is not what Norm said.
MR HUMPHRIES: I beg to differ. I take the simple words "yes" and "no" in their simple, ordinary, everyday, hoi polloi meaning. That meaning is that "no" means negative and "yes" means positive. The questions were very clearly put; they were not ambiguous. They were not silly questions, as Mr Connolly alleged the other day. They were very sensible questions and he answered them in a way which I think now incriminates him in that sense. I urge him to reconsider his hard line on this matter. For goodness sake show a bit of humility. We can all be wrong - - -
Mr Kaine: A bit of intellectual rigour.
MR HUMPHRIES: A bit of intellectual rigour, Mr Kaine says. Whatever it is, please show it and let us get onto more important business. Mr Deputy Speaker, one last point; there is certainly evidence in this whole debate of the Government's complete contempt for the Assembly with respect to question time, either in the Assembly or in the Estimates Committee. That is the real problem that we are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .