Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 343 ..

Mr Moore (continuing):

... provide to the Member who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that Member ...

Then later on, in (c), it says:

in the event that the Minister does not provide an explanation ...

I would have thought a normal interpretation of that would have been to take the word "explanation" as described more fully at the beginning of the standing order and that therefore we would be talking about an explanation that is satisfactory to the member at this point as well. That would keep a consistent reading of the whole standing order.

Mr Speaker, can I suggest, having made that suggestion, that you take advice. I am quite happy to give the Leader of the Opposition leave to put her motion. As far as I am concerned, I support her putting the motion; but perhaps, rather than leaving sitting on the table a ruling that I think is open to question, it would be worth taking advice on that and trying to see what is the most effective way to deal with this issue so that we do not run into this problem again.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, could I support that suggestion, but make a point in relation to what Mr Moore has just said. I ask members to look at the reference to "explanation" in paragraph (a). It says there:

at the conclusion of questions without notice on any day after that period, that Member may ask the relevant Minister for such an explanation.

To use the analogy Mr Moore has just used, if the word "explanation" subsequently in that standing order is meant to refer to the phrase "an explanation satisfactory to that Member", why are the phrases different in paragraph (a) and paragraph (c)? It is quite clear to me that what is meant by this is that at the conclusion of questions the member may ask the Minister for an explanation. If the Minister provides an explanation, then a motion may be moved in relation to that. If he or she does not provide an explanation, then there may be another motion that is more general than the one that is referred to in paragraph (b). That clearly is the interpretation I think anybody would draw, looking reasonably at those words.

MR SPEAKER: I must say that I believe that Mr Moore's suggestion would be sensible. I am quite concerned that we have a statement in the standing order, "does not, within that period, provide to the Member who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that Member". That seems to me to be an enormously broad undertaking; any member could stubbornly refuse to accept the explanation ever.

Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe that you have made an inference about my motivation in requesting an answer on this question. I can assure you that there is a great deal more to it than just stubbornness, and I believe that that inference should be withdrawn.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .