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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 913 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

Mr Humphries' familiarity or, to put it another way, lack of familiarity with ACT finances. For the information of members, particularly members on the other side of the chamber who have the former Treasurer sitting amongst them and complaining about a table that he put together, apparently, so that they may not have had the benefit of the detail associated with it, I table Mr Humphries' press release and the statement that goes with it. If members on the other side of the house want to know what Mr Humphries put forward, they should not ask Mr Humphries. I do not think it is a case of Alzheimer's; I think it is a case of him not understanding it in the first place. I present the following paper:

MS GALLAGHER: I have a supplementary question. Treasurer, as this technical detail has now been explained, what clues were in the budget consultation document that would have made the information you have just presented plain to Mr Humphries?

MR QUINLAN: I guess the clues would have had to have been read. I have to say that I have probably anticipated your supplementary question somewhat by reading into Hansard the material from this document, which clearly said that the update provided a list of known and agreed adjustments of the 2000-01 estimated outcome and forward estimates from the previous government, and table 1 provides a summary thereof-extended by a year, I have to admit. What might have thrown Mr Humphries is that we have actually added a year, we have extended those figures, but I can only repeat what I said a moment ago-never was there such an eloquent commentary on Mr Humphries' familiarity with the economics of the ACT.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, you raised a point of order about whether the question had been fully answered or had not been answered at all. It has been drawn to my attention that the question yesterday was from Mr Stefaniak, who said:

I will not take you right through the question, but Mr Quinlan's immediate response was that he would have to take the question on notice; so, to that extent, it was not fully answered and the question today was quite in order and you therefore had no point of order, as I suspected. I also heard Ms Gallagher urging Mr Quinlan to bring these matters to the attention of the Assembly, so your point of order fell short of the mark.

Mr Humphries: There is another point of order that I might take. Isn't there a standing order which says that a question taken on notice, as that question was yesterday, cannot be asked again in this place?

MR SPEAKER: You asked whether there is. I do not think so.

Mr Humphries: You are the Speaker. Can you answer it?

MR SPEAKER: I think the minister was entitled to answer the question. He took it on notice yesterday.

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