<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2018-07-04" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1433" />
  <endPage num="1504" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding>
    <name>Parliamentary Procedure</name>
    <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000600">
      <heading>Parliamentary Procedure</heading>
    </text>
    <subject>
      <name>Sessional Orders</name>
      <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000601">
        <heading>Sessional Orders</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4840" kind="speech">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <startTime time="2018-07-04T15:24:57" />
        <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000602">
          <timeStamp time="2018-07-04T15:24:57" />
          <by role="member" id="4840">The SPEAKER (15:24):</by>  While I await the next member of the opposition's grievance debate, I take this opportunity to rule on a matter raised earlier today. Earlier today, the member for Kaurna raised a matter about the potential breach of the sessional order concerning the provision of answers to questions given on notice. I note that the sessional order adopted by the house on 30 May 2018 requires that once notice of a question has been given and placed on the <term>Notice Paper</term> pursuant to standing order 102, an answer to the question shall be delivered to the Clerk pursuant to standing order 103, not more than 30 days after the date on which it had been first printed on the <term>Notice Paper</term>.</text>
        <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000603">The member for Kaurna referred to two questions he asked the minister representing the Minister for Health and Wellbeing on 16 May 2018 and, it now being 49 days without an answer being provided to the two questions, he believes this is a breach of the sessional order. Firstly, I draw the house's attention to the fact that, on 16 May 2018, notice was given of the two questions referred to by the member for Kaurna, which predates the adoption of the sessional order.</text>
        <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000604">While there may be some doubt as to whether the sessional order applies to these questions, undoubtedly sometime into the future the house may be confronted with the situation where answers to questions have not been provided within the 30-day period set out in the sessional order. As the sessional order does not provide guidance as to the process to follow, or sanctions to be incurred should a minister fail to furnish answers within the 30-day time period, the house is in uncharted territory. I therefore refer to other jurisdictions that have provisions in place where replies to questions are not provided in a specified time frame. For example, standing order 105(b) of the House of Representatives states:</text>
        <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000605">
          <inserted>If a reply has not been received 60 days after a question first appeared on the Notice Paper, the Member who asked the question may, at the conclusion of Question Time, ask the Speaker to write to the Minister concerned, seeking reasons for the delay in answering.</inserted>
        </text>
        <page num="1478" />
        <text continued="true" id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000606">Further, in the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, if no answer is received after one calendar month to a question on notice, standing order 80(2) provides that the member who asked the question may rise at the end of question time and ask the minister why no answer has been received.</text>
        <text id="2018070408c6367605a5412590000607">Having considered this matter, I do not have the benefit of standing orders or established practices to guide me in assisting the house at the moment. While I am of the view that the practices and procedures in place in other jurisdictions provide a measured and sensible approach, ultimately resolution of this matter is up to the house to determine.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>