Page 1584 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Government is concerned, in order that we come up with something which is workable and makes some sense and looks presentable in the standing orders, not something that is poorly drafted and drags the standing orders down rather than adding to their credibility. That is the Government's position. We accept that the motion will pass and we will do our very best to comply with the 30-day rule, but there will be cases where we will not be able to.
MR STEVENSON (11.33): This is a great idea; like many of the questions on notice, it is long overdue. Mr Berry makes sense when he talks about the motion saying that the answer needs to satisfy the member. That is a difficulty. However, Mr Lamont makes the point that as the standing orders are being reviewed it can certainly be looked at, and if there is a better way to present that it can be done.
Mr Berry complains about being told a little while before question time that he will be asked a question on a specific subject. That can be misleading quite often, he says, because the question is a detailed one and what he was told about it does not give him an indication of what it is really about. In my case I do not give him a brief indication before question time; I give him weeks and weeks to get the information so that he will have it ready to answer during questions without notice. Unfortunately, that was abused. On the one hand he complains about people not giving him any indication. Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, our office usually gets no acknowledgment whatsoever from the Ministers. On less than 10 per cent of all the questions I have set up did they ever come back to us and tell us, "Yes, the answer is ready". As I said yesterday, it is a damn poor show. This is a very good idea to move towards getting our questions answered.
MR LAMONT (11.35): Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, this motion was discussed last December and debate was adjourned. At that stage it was indicated that the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures was to conduct a review of the standing orders. That review is being undertaken at present. It is probably halfway through in terms of the total work that will be required. Obviously, consideration of any alterations has not yet been finalised by the Administration and Procedures Committee, but you can rest assured that one of the questions that have been raised is the operation of this temporary order.
The process by which Mr Stevenson's questions have been dealt with by the Government has varied according to the type of question asked. Mr Stevenson regards a process that he attempted to outline this morning as not workable. The obvious observation which Mr Stevenson needs to bear in mind is that there is a process called questions on notice. That is an appropriate form for Mr Stevenson to use in these circumstances.
Mr Kaine: They can take a year to answer, too.
MR LAMONT: That, I understand, is not a complaint which Mr Stevenson has made, Mr Kaine. This proposition would answer the issues that Mr Stevenson has raised this morning and has raised previously this week. I would suggest that there are difficulties with the wording, as both the Deputy Chief Minister and Mr Stevenson have pointed out, because it is almost impossible, were an individual member to set his or her mind to it, to satisfy the questioner.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .