Page 3976 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A further problem that I have with Mr Humphries's motion is that it proposes a most inflexible set of rules for the Government. Just as Mr Stevenson's motion sought to impose a most inflexible set of rules which members did not find acceptable, so does Mr Humphries's motion. It is a further concern of mine, Madam Speaker, that in imposing a 30-day deadline Mr Humphries may not only cause the Government to experience difficulty in proceeding with its business but also - inadvertently, I am sure - affect the kind of answer that members get to their questions. If a Minister or an agency is rushing to meet a 30-day deadline, there is a possibility that you will not get as full an answer as you would otherwise, because of the sanctions that Mr Humphries's motion encompasses. Madam Speaker, members ought to consider the sanction that this Assembly would then have open to it to use against a Minister who had not answered within these deadlines which Mr Humphries seeks to set.
I think that the second part of Mr Humphries's motion could well involve this Assembly in extremely lengthy debates in which the Government was merely seeking to defend itself from criticism on deadlines sought to be set by Mr Humphries. It implies to me that there would be a great many more debates which really had very little to do with the good government of the Territory and very little to do with the substance of an issue that a member had questioned but which might have a great deal to do simply with political point scoring as to artificial deadlines. I find that unacceptable.
The motion would mean that any question outstanding after 30 days would provide the Opposition with an automatic right to move motions critical of Ministers. I assume, Madam Speaker, that those motions would then have precedence over all other business after question time. Members have open to them at the moment the ability to move a censure motion. Such a motion usually has precedence, as we all know. I cannot see why we need a yet further weapon for the Opposition to criticise Ministers - and to criticise Ministers on a timetable that has been set up by the Opposition itself. Madam Speaker, it is not in the interests of good government here in the ACT for anybody in this chamber to endorse a motion which has the potential - and I stress that it is a potential - to grind the business of government to a halt. I repeat that the motion may tie up both the Ministry and the agencies, the public service, in meeting a very inflexible regime. The reasons for this inflexibility are unclear to me, because I think members have good service in relation to the questions that they ask.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I reiterate a point that I have made many times. If members have a complex question to ask or a complex issue that they want to debate - looking through the notice paper, I can see such questions in relation to housing and some in relation to health - it is always open to them to seek a briefing or to seek discussion with the Minister. Madam Speaker, all Ministers are amenable to that approach, and that approach may well clarify in members' minds the kinds of questions they ought to be asking or the kinds of questions that will give them the best value for that effort on their part.
The Government will be opposing this motion. We do not believe that it is necessary and, in particular, I believe that an examination of the facts of questions on notice and the Government's response to those questions reveals that it is not necessary. I am quite prepared to make a better effort. We are always looking to improve our performance. If there are questions which have given members concern because of delay in Ministers replying to them, they can draw them to the attention of Ministers. I think it has been the case that where such a delay has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .