Hon Robin Chapple questions the Minister for State Development regarding the adequacy of a previous answer to QoN 648, citing Standing Order 138(c). The Minister defends the original answer and invites clarification requests.

AnsweredQoN 864Legislative Council
Asked
13 June 2003
Portfolio
State Development

QuestionView source ↗

I refer to question on notice No. 648, April 9 2003 and the answer provided -
(1) Given that the Minister for State Development has not provided clear, concise, relevant and free from argument answers to all the questions 1 to 5 will the Minister now ask the Department to provide clear, concise, relevant and free from argument answers to all of these questions?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) With regard to Standing Order 138(c), 'Replies shall be concise, relevant, and free from argument or controversial matter', does the Minister consider the answer to question on notice No. 648 to breach Standing Order 138(c)?
(4) If no to (3), why not?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
19 August 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
67 days
(1) The answer provided attempted to be clear, concise and relevant. If the Honorable Member cares to provide advice on what part of the answer he did not understand, the Minister will attempt to clarify that matter. (2) N/A (3) As in (1). (4) N/A
(2) N/A (3) As in (1). (4) N/A
(3) As in (1). (4) N/A
(4) N/A

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more