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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3744 ..

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries has already given an undertaking.

Ms McRae: He has not. It does not matter.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Humphries has already given an undertaking to find out why the question was not answered within the 30 days. The undertaking has been given. I do not know what the basis of this debate is.

Mr Whitecross: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, you may not understand why people want to debate this issue, but there is a motion before the Chair and we are debating it.

MR SPEAKER: That the Assembly take note of the explanation.

Mr Whitecross: If you as a member of this Assembly want to debate the motion, then I suggest you come down to the floor of the chamber and debate the motion and let someone else take the chair. The fact is that there is a motion before the Chair. Members are exercising their rights under the standing orders to debate it. The basis on which they are debating it is that people are not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. Whatever undertaking the Minister has given, we are entitled, as members, to say that we are not satisfied with that.

MR BERRY: This issue is about attitude to the standing orders. That is why the motion that this Assembly take note of the paltry explanation has been moved. In recent days there have been another couple of examples of Ministers and their departments refusing to answer questions. For example, after the Estimates Committee had put its report together, departments and Ministers were providing answers which they thought might have been embarrassing to them. This is just the continuation of that attitude problem that this Government has on questions. There is no doubt in my mind that the Assembly should note this paltry explanation that this Minister has given.

Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I remind Mr Berry of what we are doing here. He obviously has lost sight of it.

Ms McRae: It is not your job.

Mr Humphries: It might not be my job, Ms McRae, but I wish to do so.

Ms McRae: What is the standing order?

Mr Humphries: It is to do with relevance.

Ms McRae: No, it is not.

Mr Humphries: Perhaps I should address my comments to you, Ms McRae. The fact is that I gave an answer to Ms Horodny's request to explain why an answer had been provided late. The answer was that I did not know and I was going to take the question on notice to find out. That is the issue being debated here. With great respect,

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