Page 3975 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, this is a self-explanatory motion. I think we can see quite clearly how important it is for questions to be answered within 30 days. This procedure was introduced in the Senate in 1988. It has worked very well there. I understand that there has been no case in which it has actually been applied in the Senate, because every question in the Senate has been answered within 30 days. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think that we have here a very valuable amendment to our standing orders. I support the motion and recommend that members of the Assembly support it.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.15): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing Mr Humphries's motion, and we will be doing so for a variety of reasons. The first reason that I would like to put before the Assembly is that Mr Humphries's proposed action is not necessary. I agree with Mr Humphries that any action that we can take to improve not just the Government's performance but also the Opposition's performance in the chamber should be pursued.
Nevertheless, if you have a simple look at the notice paper, Madam Speaker, you will see that, of the 481 questions that have been asked prior to this week, only 77 remain unanswered. So, the vast majority of questions have been answered. They have been answered in a timely fashion. In fact, a very large number of those questions were, in fact, answered within 30 days, and I think that is a pretty good record. I point out that our first reason for opposing Mr Humphries's motion is simply that the Government does not need this big stick approach to ensure that members get timely responses to their questions. I agree, Madam Speaker, that members are entitled to timely responses to their questions - there is no doubt whatsoever about that - and they are getting them.
Madam Speaker, we will be opposing this motion also because, to an extent, it poses a threat to the Government's ability to govern properly. It does that in a number of ways. It would enable private members to tie up an incredible amount of the Government's resources and could be used mischievously. I have never said that that has happened; but the potential would be there for the opposition and independent members, through questions on notice, to virtually stifle the Government's ability to get on with its business because of the amount of resources that would be tied up. To an extent, it would make the Government a hostage to fortune. We would have to rely on the good will of the Opposition and on their good sense in disciplining themselves as to how many questions they asked and of what sort.
Quite clearly, Madam Speaker, this kind of motion is not acceptable to the Government. Further - and I am sure that members would acknowledge this privately, if not publicly - many questions on the notice paper are not there simply in order to elicit information. We are political animals in this chamber, and in fact the question on notice has been, and is, used as a political weapon in the Opposition's armoury. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I have been in government and opposition. I am quite sure that members would privately concede that I am correct in that. Madam Speaker, if you have a look through the notice paper, you will see that that is sometimes the case - not in every case. I think that members would acknowledge that point if they were speaking freely on the matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .