Personal Explanation

Estimates Committee Procedure

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:07): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Mr KNOLL: Mr Speaker, yesterday in the house the member for Wright made reference to points of order that I made during estimates with regard to publicly available information, suggesting that those points of order were not in fact relevant and that publicly available information is not relevant to estimates. I would like to draw your attention to page 362 of the 24^th edition of Erskine May, which states:

Questions requiring information set forth in accessible documents (such as statutes, treaties etc.) have not been allowed when the Member concerned could obtain the information of his own accord without difficulty.

I would ask, Mr Speaker, for a ruling from you on whether or not that part of Erskine May applies during estimates proceedings.

The SPEAKER: The committee is a subset of the house, so I rule that the rule applies in committee. The member for Wright.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sir, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The SPEAKER: Has the member been misrepresented?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: How has the member been represented?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Well, that is what I am asking to explain. So, do I have leave, sir?

The SPEAKER: I would like to know how the member was misrepresented.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I was misrepresented in that personal explanation, in that in my speech yesterday I said that the member for Schubert was in fact that 'the darling of points of order' and that he was calling points of order in relation to a minister's answer, when in fact, if the same standards applied in estimates as they do in question time, all their questions would have been out of order. That was my point.

The SPEAKER: I do not think the house should give leave for that personal explanation.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sir, can I have a point of clarity?

The SPEAKER: No, I do not take points of clarity. That is the deputy leader's style.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: If the answers have to be according to standing orders, so do the questions.

The SPEAKER: That is an entirely different question from the one the member for Schubert raised, and that may be raised independently, as the member did yesterday.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Sir, and that is exactly what I said yesterday and that is why I am saying I was misrepresented.

The SPEAKER: The house has no particular interest in what you said yesterday.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am sorry, but that was his personal explanation.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir: the member for Wright is obstructing the house, and under 142 I think there are steps you need to take, sir.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Is the member for Kavel in pain?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order from the member for Newland. This will be as barren as the previous one.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Sir, the member for Wright sought to make a personal explanation. The usual procedure, in my understanding, is that leave is sought, leave is then granted or not, and it is generally not done by the Chair to interrogate the member before they seek to make their personal explanation.

The SPEAKER: When I was much younger in this house, the procedure was that a member sought leave to make a personal explanation and the Speaker asked, 'Has the member been misrepresented?'

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: And I was.

The SPEAKER: Well, the member said she had been misrepresented, but in my judgement she was not misrepresented.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: On that point of order, sir, you said merely ask the question, 'Has she been misrepresented?' to which the member for Wright said yes. I would have thought, generally, that the personal explanation would then proceed.

The SPEAKER: Had we granted leave and heard the member for Wright for any length of time, we would have discovered that there is no substratum of fact for the claim that the member for Wright had been misrepresented.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You never asked for leave.

The SPEAKER: No, that's true. I decided to hear the member for Wright without leave and I reached that conclusion.