Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1689 ..
MR DE DOMENICO: Yesterday Ms Horodny sought a copy of the guidelines used by ACTION to determine what advertisements can be placed on ACTION buses. I am pleased to table the guidelines that form part of the bus advertising contract terms and conditions.
MR DE DOMENICO: I took on notice a question from Ms Tucker this afternoon. I can give her some more information at this stage. On 1 April there were five buses, or 0.132 per cent, out of 3,800 services. For the month of April, the figure was 0.6 per cent. There were 515 out of 87,000 services. That helps a bit. I will give you some more information, Ms Tucker, as it comes along.
Ms Tucker: Can I have a copy of that?
MR DE DOMENICO: It is handwritten on a piece of paper. I will get you a typed copy. You wanted a quick answer.
MR SPEAKER: Earlier in question time, there was a motion of dissent from my ruling. First of all, I would like to point out that House of Representatives Practice does not allow the Chair to participate during a debate of a motion of dissent from a ruling except, for instance, to explain or clarify procedural matter. The question is in the hands of the house to decide. That is a bit of background information for members. However, on 14 May this year I read a rather detailed statement to the house. One section of it stated - and I quote from page 41 of the uncorrected proof copy of Hansard - - -
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you reopening the debate that was adjourned?
MR SPEAKER: No, I am not, Mr Moore. I am about to explain the point of my ruling. That is what I am doing. On 14 May this year I read a detailed statement to the house. It is at page 41 of the uncorrected proof copy of Hansard. I said at the time:
... I would like to clarify the issue of whether a supplementary question can be asked when the principal question has not yet been answered. Standing order 119, relating to supplementary questions, states in part: