Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to raise a serious issue that is continuing to get worse in this Parliament, in my view. It is the nature of answers to questions. I would like to take the time of the House to raise this with you, because it is illustrative of a terrible trend. I refer to my question for written answer No. 1663 to the Attorney-General, and it asks this—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am perfectly happy for the member to come and see me about the matter, and then I can have a look at it. But this is Parliament’s time, and that is a written question. If the member has not had the answer on time, it is perfectly proper to raise that, and I will make sure it is on time.

It is a point of order of this House. It is a written question, but it is a parliamentary written question, and there is only one place that one can raise—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Carry on, then.

The question asks: “ … what court room experience did Judges Glazebrook, Keith, Blanchard and Hammond have before their appointment, and what were the dates of their appointments?”. That is a very straightforward question for the Attorney-General to answer. But the answer that came back through Parliament is this: “The information requested in this question is part of the public record.” That is it. The Attorney-General does not even advise what the public record is that tells people a judge’s courtroom experience. I would have thought that that was a totally inadequate answer. Maybe the Attorney-General does not know that there is no public record of judges’ courtroom experience.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has had his moment. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 130/4, which is going right back to Speaker Harrison in 1983: “A written answer is primarily a matter between the Minister and the member.” If the member has consulted the Minister, OK, then he can certainly consult me, and I will do my very best to make sure that he has a proper and accurate answer given.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter. We will be moving to a new type of judiciary where the Government wants to appoint the whole of our new Court of Appeal. It is a matter of great interest to members of Parliament. So we have a perfectly respectable question put down to the Minister, asking what is a court record. There is no public record of attendance by lawyers. Maybe the Attorney-General, because she herself does not have much court experience, does not know that. But where else can we raise it but here? The only power that MPs really have is the ability to question the executive, but if the executive gives answers that are nonsense, what is the point of our having written questions at all?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There are two points. Firstly, we do have a weekly general debate where members can debate replies. That was how that debate originally came about. Secondly, I shall look at the point the member has raised, and I will come back to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said that I would look at the question.

Yes, but I raised this difficulty, you have assisted me many, many times before with written questions, you have always assisted me in a positive and helpful way, and I appreciate that, but it takes time. The reason Ministers dodge questions is to avoid time—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, now the member is going too wide. I will give him every assistance. I always do.