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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 345 ..

Mr Kaine: The former Speaker has plenty to say, but a little while ago you put a motion which I did not even hear. I got to my feet to ask you to clarify it and the next thing you have the Assembly voting on it, when I did not even hear the motion. I repeat, Mr Speaker, that I do not know what is going on, and I suspect that nobody else does either. Can you clarify the thing?

MS FOLLETT: If I could clarify it for Mr Kaine's benefit, Mr Speaker, the Assembly has granted me leave to move the motion circulated in my name, following the expiry of my previous motion, on the Speaker's ruling that it was out of order, following Mr Humphries's point of order.

Mr De Domenico: Then this one is out of order, too, is it not?

MS FOLLETT: No; I have leave to move this one. Try to pay attention over there. To be brief, I asked this question on 6 December last year. To date, the only explanation I have had from the Chief Minister as to her failure to answer it is that it is a rather complex question. I know that, and that is why I have given her three times the normal amount of time required to answer a question. But I have had enough. I now think it is high time the question was answered. I have experience in these matters and know how complex this question is. I have previously adhered to the Government's request that they not answer some questions on the grounds that they were too complex. I have agreed to that, so I am not being unreasonable here. I realise that the question does require all of the departments and agencies to submit a return, but the period for which the return needs to be submitted expired last November and I can think of no reason why the information I have sought is not readily available. It is merely a matter of collating that information and providing me with an answer. The Government has had three months to do that, and, since the Chief Minister sought an extension of time from me on 28 December, she has had two months to do it. I think that is an entirely reasonable amount of time.

As I said before, Mr Speaker, standing order 118A was not my doing. I did not oppose it at the time, but it was a request from the Assembly to the government of the day for questions to be answered in a timely and efficient manner. I support that requirement by the Assembly in the general case of questions asked with or without notice. In particular, with the question I have asked, No. 123, I believe that I am fully entitled to either an answer or a more convincing explanation than that it is just a bit complicated. I know that it is a bit complicated. That is why you have had three months, not one. I commend the motion to the Assembly. Let us try to keep the Government honest.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (3.51): Mr Speaker, I am very happy to give this Assembly an undertaking, as I have already done on a number of occasions, that we will answer this question as soon as we can. The reality is that our Fiscal system has fallen over and will not be repaired, due to union bans. We have union bans on answering questions, as those on the other side of this house would know. If we have union bans on answering questions on information technology that would give us the information to do it in any number of other areas within the various departments we would need to access to get this information, I suspect that this Assembly could ask me to provide it today, in two hours, or whatever, and there is probably very little chance of doing so, simply because the capacity to do it has been severely affected by the 200-plus bans that are currently in place.

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