Page 1585 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Some may suggest that it is a semantic point; nevertheless it is one which is quite valid when we have in this chamber some quite literal interpretations by individual members as to what the standing orders mean. As you are aware, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, standing orders are interpreted to suit the particular point that individuals may try to make from time to time. Of course, nobody on this side of the house takes that attitude, but we have seen it adopted by some other members in the Assembly in the last 14 months.
In an information sense the proposition that needs to be addressed is whether or not, as an individual member, I am entitled to demand the content within the context of an answer when I have put in a question. The simple fact is that, while we are entitled to ask any question, we are not necessarily entitled to expect an answer in the form in which we, for political or personal reasons, wish to have it. That has to be accepted by the Assembly. There will be differences of opinion about the content of an answer, the implications of an answer and the context within which that answer is given.
Obviously, at times, we put questions on notice to elicit specific information to pursue other objectives. It may be that as a tactic the Opposition wish to pursue a particular issue. To elicit information on that issue they will put in a quite complicated and quite complex question, trying to trip the answers which may be given to questions without notice. The context of answers to questions on notice at times will not satisfy the person asking the questions. That is the point that has to be borne in mind when the Assembly, this day, passes this proposition. Again, it should also be quite clear that the Administration and Procedures Committee is currently reviewing the standing orders, and those standing orders will come back to this Assembly for ratification if the committee proposes any alterations.
There is another question that arises out of all of this, and it is whether or not we get a result at the end, because paragraph (c) of the motion 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.
In reality, what does that mean? Does it mean that this Assembly says to the Minister, "You are a naughty person; you have not given the appropriate answer"? That is the end of it. What does it mean?
Mr De Domenico: No; "You have not given an answer or an explanation".
MR LAMONT: What does it mean?
Mr Kaine: It means that you can move for his censure because he is not doing his job right.
MR LAMONT: Well, is that the case?
Mr Kaine: It might be.
MR LAMONT: Is that the case?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .