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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3724 ..

Mr Humphries: The standing orders require that matters of a hypothetical nature not be the subject of questions. Those across the way allege that a report exists. We have never seen it. We, probably very foolishly, take their word that somewhere in the Auditor-General's Office there is some draft about a particular matter. That report has not been presented; it is not a formal document; it is not the subject of any Government consideration at this point in time. It therefore must count as a hypothetical question as to what our reaction would be to a document we have not yet had submitted to us. In the circumstances, to ask us questions about a document we have not seen, and are not entitled to see under the normal rules by which the Auditor-General operates, is in breach of the standing orders.

MR SPEAKER: I will answer Ms Follett's point of order. Of course the Opposition are at liberty to ask questions of Ministers. However, it is equally true that Ministers can then choose to answer as they see fit. If it so happens that the Minister concerned has not seen the report or is not aware of these matters, then they will give that answer and there is nothing that I as the Speaker can do.

Mr Berry: Why do they not just say, "We will come back to you."?

MR SPEAKER: I cannot force people to answer questions the way that members may wish them to answer them.

Mr Whitecross: Mr Speaker, further to this point of order, and picking up in particular some of Mr Humphries's comments, I simply make the point that if the Government are simply refusing to answer the question, which, as you have just ruled, they are entitled to do - they are entitled to say, "I am sorry; we are not going to answer that question - - -

MR SPEAKER: I do not think that was the answer that was given.

Mr Whitecross: The Government can say, "We are not willing to answer the question. We know, as Mrs Carnell has confirmed, that a draft report exists, but we are not going to find out any more about it. As far as we are concerned, we are not going to talk about it". That is their right, but let them be judged for their refusal to answer the question. Let us not have a situation where they pretend to hide behind spurious standing orders, suggesting that this is a hypothetical question. Mrs Carnell has confirmed that this report exists. Mr Humphries is wrong to suggest that a question about something that Mrs Carnell has confirmed the existence of is hypothetical. The Auditor-General himself, in letters to the Estimates Committee, confirmed that he had written management letters to all the departments. I do not know how Mrs Carnell can say that these reports do not exist.

Mr Berry: Which takes me back to my supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: No. The supplementary question has been answered, Mr Berry - maybe not to your satisfaction, but it has been answered.

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