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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1858 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

them that they were not to do that. They have attempted to do it again and again, contrary to the spirit that Mr Simon Corbell is talking about.

Supposedly they came in with a new sense of spirit, and they have spent almost all of question time guffawing and laughing amongst themselves, making it very difficult for ministers to answers questions, because as soon as the answer is not going the way they want it they are not interested. They talk between themselves in very loud voices and make it difficult to operate. Now, we have accepted that. We have gone on and proceeded. We have answered the questions as best we can.

On the specific matter, Mr Speaker: there is no way that any Speaker can require a minister to answer a question-

Mr Quinlan: What humbug!

Mr Berry: We will sing in praise-

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR MOORE: Here it goes again, Mr Speaker. We listened to Mr Corbell, but when I am speaking we have got Mr Berry, Mr Hargreaves and Mr Quinlan all interrupting me as I speak at this very moment, Mr Speaker.

Mr Stanhope: And you would never do that.

MR MOORE: And Mr Stanhope. We have a situation where no Speaker is able to require a minister to answer a question in a particular way. It is impossible. We answer the question as we see fit from our area of knowledge in the best way we can, and the electorate and the media judge us on how we answer questions. That is the nature of question time, Mr Speaker. When a minister says, "I have answered this question fully", that is the biggest indicator you have of whether the question has been answered fully or not. Mr Speaker, you make a judgment about that.

We have heard a series of questions on the Lyneham tennis centre, and that is understandable. The opposition is certainly entitled to do that. But as the answers become more and more repetitive, it is quite clear that the issues have been covered. They have been covered in a slightly different way in the opposition, for who knows what reason, and I do not object to that.

The reality is that standing order 117 (h), as I recall, does say that a question that has been fully answered cannot be put again. If the opposition decides they want to push standing orders in the series of ways I have indicated, then of course they are going to be required to be held accountable to the standing orders by you.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, for Mr Corbell to move dissent in the way he has in the middle of question time is just nonsense and it is part of the game that he is playing. It is the same game that he and his colleagues are playing when they stand up to take-

Mr Corbell: Thanks very much. You are a joke, Michael Moore.

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