Page 1581 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Generally the responses to the questions have been of a high standard. However, the turnaround time is often longer than I would have hoped for. Often it is constituents' requests that we are awaiting answers for and it is difficult to explain to them that this process at the moment is an open-ended one. Analogies can be effectively drawn with the 30-day period for freedom of information requests, which are generally required to be proceeded with within 30 days. Further analogies can be effectively drawn with the current Senate arrangements, which also require questions on notice from some 44 members to be responded to within 30 days.
I would therefore conclude that Mr Humphries's motion regarding questions on the notice paper is a reasonable one and is worthy of the support of this Assembly. I acknowledge that a review of the 30-day period would be useful, and I trust that the Administration and Procedures Committee of this Assembly will look at that carefully.
MR BERRY (Deputy Chief Minister) (11.24): I would like to refer to the drafting of the motion, first of all. I see that Mr Humphries is not here, and he is responsible for it. I do not particularly relish talking about him when he is not here, but he would be comfortable with that process, being a member of the Liberal Party, because they do a bit of that sort of stuff. The motion does not make a lot of sense. As was previously pointed out, it would be hard to find an explanation that would be satisfactory to a member were a member to be agitated about delay in answering the question and the political point could be made. We accept that.
Mr Kaine: In my case just explain why you cannot produce the answer and I will be satisfied.
MR BERRY: Mr Kaine is presented as an honourable person in this place on some occasions, but I have to say that there have been some points of time in history when I do not think there was an explanation that could have satisfied him on a whole range of issues, once he had made up his mind. The motion, in that sense, is poorly drafted because it does not provide any interpretation of what is satisfactory. It is a very subjective - - -
Mrs Carnell: Satisfactory to the Assembly.
MR BERRY: No, no; it is a subjective assessment of what is satisfactory to a member. If a member says, "No, I do not like that; I am not happy", that is the end of the issue.
Mr De Domenico: Then the Assembly will decide, like it will on this matter, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: No. I am afraid, no. If you have a look at the drafting of the motion, no, the Assembly will not decide. Read it closely. I will explain a little later on why it will not decide. Go down to the last paragraph. Leave out all the stuff in the middle, paragraphs (a) and (b). Look at paragraph (c). It says:
in the event that the Minister does not provide an explanation, the Member may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the Minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .