1277 Tuesday, 7 May 1991 the PRESIDENT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1277 Tuesday, 7 May 1991 THE PRESIDENT (Ron Cive Griffiths) took the Chair at 3.30 pm, and read prayers. STATEMENT - BY THE PRESIDENT Answering of Questions and Giving of Notice Review THE PRESIDENT : I bring to members' attention a letter I have received from Hon Peter Foss dealing with the form and content of some replies to questions asked in this House. Hon David Wordsworth has also raised issues connected with the time taken to answer some questions. I advise the House that those matters together with an overall review of the current procedures for the giving of notice and answering of questions will be undertaken by the Standing Orders Committee. If members wish to comment on any aspect of the review they should write to the committee and their comments will be considered by the committee in deciding how it will deal with the subject and what recommendations may be made to the House. PERSONAL EXPLANATION - BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL West Coast Eagles-Site Government Insurance Commission Question HON J.M. BERINSON (North Metropolitan - Attorney General) [3.34 pm] - by leave: Though it will involve some repetition of recent matters the quickest way in which I can make this statement is by quotation of some questions and answers in the Hansard. On our last meeting day Hon Peter Foss asked in question 149 - (1) Does the Attorney General recall that I asked him a question when I received an unsatisfactory answer from the State Government Insurance Office as to what were the arrangements with the West Coast Eagles, and he said he would take up the matter with the relevant Minister to ascertain the facts and give a proper answer? (2) Did he do that, and why have I not received that answer prior to now? My reply was - Franldy, unless it had been referred to again last night, I would not have recalled it. My invariable practice, however, is to have my office consider any answers I have given and to ensure that any follow ups that I have indicated should be proceeded with are in fact put in train. Hon George Cash then stated - There is no commitment from you for any undertaking you give in this House. I then demanded the withdrawal of that remark and, after further comments, Hon George Cash did in fact withdraw. Hon Peter Foss then asked question without notice 150 as follows - Following from the previous question, in view of the fact that I still do not have a full and complete answer to the question I asked, and in view of the importance now being attached to what the arrangements were, would the Attorney General mrange as a matter of urgency for the House to be informed of the answer to my question? My reply was - I am happy to refer this question by Hon Peter Foss for the consideration of the responsible Minister. It seems to me that I have been misrepresented in an earlier question ... As I understood it, there was an attempt to give the impression that I undertook, apparently on 28 March, to ensure that Hon Peter Foss' request for full and further answers would be given. I have now had 30 seconds to check the Hansard and it appears to me that my reply did not undertake that; nor did it fall short of undertaking 01932-1 1278 [COUNCIL] that by accident or error. I adopted on that occasion a form of answer which I have adopted to the question we are now dealing with, when in response to Hon Peter Foss'l request for that full and further information I said - - Hon Peter Foss has my assurance that this matter will be referred to the responsible Minister. That is virtually precisely in line with the answer that I have now given. It is not for me to commit another Minister to what response he may feel appropriate. My undertaing was to refer it to him. I had forgotten that until the reference last night, and accordingly I have not had the opportunity to check whether I or my office did fail to refer it on. If I did, I will be very happy at the first opportunity to indicate that to the House and to apologise and to make clear that I will ensure that the matter does go on. Just as I undertook to apologise if I was in error, I am entitled to have the record set straight by information to the House which indicates that I was not in error. This requires me to go back to the original question, which was question 98, without notice on Thursday. 28 March 199 1. Hon Peter Foss ended that question by asking - ...will the Leader of the House assure me that an answer will be given in full, notwithstanding the initial answer that has been given? My reply was - Hon Peter Foss has my assurance that this matter will be referred to the responsible Minister. Fortuitously, and I think significant in the context of this small dispute last week, on the same date - that is, on Thursday, 28 March - I made very clear what the limitations of my answers were, because in the adjournment debate I said - I take a moment to indicate char in an answer earlier today to question 81 from Hon Peter Foss I indicated that I would put the matters he had raised to the responsible Minister. He had asked for an assurance that the Minister would do something. I understand some members may have understood me to be committing the Minister to that course. Obviously I could go no further than to indicate that I would put it to him for his consideration. I particularly wanted to put that matter on the record because in the course of my comments last week I heard some interjections indicating that I was coming to this version of my earlier answer very late in the day. Apparently it was being suggested that I was attempting last Thursday to put a different construction on my comments from what I indicated when I first answered the question. I hope it will be. perfectly clear to all members from the supplementary comments I made on the same day that there is no question of that having occurred. It only remains for me to indicate that my files show that on 8 April 19911 asked a member of my ministerial office to forward the original question from Hon Peter Foss to the responsible Minister. The file also indicates that that was done on 10 April. PERSONAL EXPLANATION -BY HON PETER FOSS West Coast Eagles-State Government Insurance Commission Question HON PETER FOSS (East Metropolitan) 13.42 pm] - by leave: I think the Attorney General just indicated that I suggested that a Minister in this House would give an undertaking on behalf of a Minister in the other place to give a full answer. I have never accepted that as being a basis upon which questions are asked in this House. I asked the Attorney General whether he would take up the matter with the relevant Minister to ascertain the facts and to provide a proper answer. The proper answer I was hoping to receive was from the Minister in this House. I believe I am entitled to ask a Minister in the House whether he can provide a proper answer. I was never at any stage suggesting that the Attorney General should commit the Minister in the other place to provide an answer because I do not believe a Minister in the other place has any responsibility to this House. Hon J.M. Berinson: How on earth can I give an answer at all without the advice of the Minister in the other place? [Tuesday, 7 May 1991] 1279 Hon PETER FOSS: However, a Minister in this House does have such a responsibility. That is all I was suggesting. It is perfectly proper to ask a Minister in tbis House co provide an answer to a question to this House. 1 believe that, to the extent that the Attorney General is suggesting that the answer was given by a Minister in another place, his suggestion is inconsistent with the ruling that you, Mr President, made at an earlier stage. PETITION - HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY BILL Standing Committee on Legislation Referral HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan - Leader of the Opposition) [3.44 pin]: I present a petition from 41 citizens of Western Australia requesting that the Human Reproductive Technology Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the proposed prohibition of embryo experimentation and the structure of the Reproductive Technology Council be reviewed. [See paper No 35 1.1 MOTION - ROTFNEST ISLAND AUTHORITY AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1990 Disallowance HON J.N. CALDWELL (Agricultural) [3.47 pm]l: I move - That the Roitnest Island Authority Amendment Regulations 1990 published in the Governent Gazette on 9 November 1990 and tabled in Ibis House on 15 November 1990 be, and are hereby, disallowed. It has come to the attention of the National Party that the Rottnest Island Authority is seeking to modify the schedule of the Rottnest Island Authority Act so that the authority can alter charges it levies without the scrutiny of Parliament. The National Party considers that would be completely wrong. The Select Committee on Delegated Legislation will examine those changes. Recently. I spoke with Mr Chris Back, the Chairman of the Rottnest island Authority, and he assured me that what the authority is attempting to do is in the best interests of all people who visit Rottnest Island.