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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1320 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

wrong message to the community, it being felt that the adoption of the proposal would be seen as an admission that members could not take responsibility for their own conduct.

A number of members of the committee also expressed the view that the procedure could lead to the legitimisation of disorderly behaviour. By that, Mr Speaker, the committee felt that it would allow members to draw inappropriate attention to themselves and the issues of the day by being ordered to withdraw from the Assembly but still being able to participate in votes of the Assembly.

The committee was strongly of the view that any suspension should remain in the hands of members of the Assembly and be decided by a vote, and that the requirement for a motion to be moved for the suspension of a member should be retained. I should point out, Mr Speaker, that, whilst the discussions the committee held were very cordial, effective and constructive, the committee was not unanimous in reaching these conclusions and recommendations.

One point of interest that the committee noted was the practice sometimes used in the House of Representatives-this is something that could be useful in this place-of members being able to apologise to the Speaker before a motion is moved for their suspension. This is one practice that could, at the Speaker's discretion, be used in the Assembly.

The committee has proposed to keep a watching brief on this matter. A majority of the committee is of the view that at this stage the existing standing orders should remain, but if, towards the conclusion of this Assembly, this practice does not seem to be appropriate, it will review the provisions proposed by Mr Moore.

In relation to the proposed time limits on the asking and answering of questions without notice in question time, the committee has recommended that the Assembly not support the proposed time limits, but has recommended that all members make themselves aware of their obligations under the standing orders in relation to asking and answering questions. There are time limits set in the Australian Senate and the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The committee has concluded that the current standing orders do provide the necessary direction and powers to enable the Assembly to improve the operation of questions without notice without the imposition of time limits at this stage, and that the Speaker does have the authority required to rule questions out of order and to terminate answers where required.

Mr Speaker, in relation to the conciseness of answers, this was a matter of some debate in the committee. The committee wants to draw to the Assembly's attention the dictionary definition of the term "concise". If members bear with me, I will endeavour to find this definition in the committee's report. It is on page 11 of the committee's report. The dictionary definition of the word "concise" is "expressing much in few words; brief and comprehensive; succinct; terse".

The committee feels that this definition of the word concise is an appropriate guide for members, particularly ministers, in answering questions, and that, equally, a better understanding of the obligations placed on all members in the asking and answering of questions can only improve the operation of question time. Again, the committee has decided to keep a watching brief on this issue because it feels that if the conduct of

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