Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1681..
MR SPEAKER: Standing order 119 deals with supplementary questions. Ms Tucker asked a series of questions which were taken on notice by Mr De Domenico. If Ms Tucker wishes to add - and this is somewhat in line with what Ms McRae is saying - another aspect to the question which was taken on notice, I have no objection. However, if it is a completely new question, then it is totally out of order. Ask your question, Ms Tucker, and I will make a decision.
MS TUCKER: I would like to add a question which is totally relevant. Does the fact that 0.5 per cent of services do not show up every day mean that there are inadequate provisions for relief buses and drivers, and is this an example of the fact that attempts at efficiency or money saving have failed to ensure an effective bus service or, in other words, a service in which buses actually turn up on time?
MR DE DOMENICO: I am quite happy to answer that.
MR SPEAKER: Order! No, the question is out of order. It is not a supplementary question based on the original question. That is my ruling.
MR MOORE (3.02): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move dissent from your ruling.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I move:
That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.
Mr Speaker, I move this motion so that we can get a reasonable interpretation of standing order 119. In no way should it be construed as a motion of no confidence in you, Mr Speaker. It is simply to clarify the situation with supplementary questions. Relevance to the original question is the critical point. I believe that Ms Tucker asked a question of the Minister with reference to the buses. Her supplementary question was about a further aspect of the same question. It was on the same matter, which made it relevant. I believe that it is appropriate for us to sort this matter out in the Assembly as a whole and to clarify this standing order.
MR KAINE (3.03): Mr Speaker, Mr Moore does not emphasise the fact that standing order 119 says that a supplementary question must arise out of the answer given. The second question that you have already ruled out of order did not arise out of the answer given, so Mr Moore is quite out of order.