Points of Order — Minister of Māori Affairs—Answer to Question

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue raised by Rodney Hide on a point of order is, I believe, a very serious issue. The ruling that you have just given the House, which is that the Minister can get back with the answer in his own time frame, does cause me concern. The Minister, who yesterday was unable to answer questions that he had written notice of, said he would provide the information—in fact, he used words like “I will provide it directly.” and “as soon as I get it”. We questioned you yesterday on this. You said it was incumbent on the Minister to treat the question seriously and to respond. Today you have said there is no time frame on this. We could feasibly expect the Minister to come back next year, or the year after, or next month. At some point surely there must be a time when you judge that the Minister has to answer the question or provide the information that he said to the House he is not going to provide, rather than just leaving it as open-ended as you have?

I am informed that an answer was delivered to Mr Rodney Hide’s secretary between 11 and 11.30 this morning.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not quite correct, I am sorry to inform the Leader of the House. My precise question asked on what date the Minister learnt that the Te Māngai Pāho board had rolled over Trevor Moeke’s contract. I received an answer, as the Leader of the House says, between 11 and 11.30 this morning, but in no way does it answer that question. The Minister said in this House yesterday, in answer to my question: “I do not have that information at the moment. However, I assure the member that I will put it in writing and send it directly to him.” As at this time, the Minister of Māori Affairs has not done so. I take it from your ruling, given the way this Minister of Māori Affairs works, that that could be next year.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. We cannot argue in this House about a subsequent communication between a Minister and a member. As to the point the Hon Roger Sowry raises, it is entirely up to the Minister as to when he follows up; there is no time constraint. But, of course, I urge Ministers, if they say they are going to provide an answer, to do so as quickly as they reasonably can. And the Minister did, between 11 and 11.30 a.m.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have now ruled that it is up to the Minister in terms of the time frame. I think that leaves a huge hole, and I ask you to go away and consider that ruling in respect of the opportunity that that provides for Ministers to not answer. You have also ruled that the Minister has answered the question, and did so between 11 and 11.30 a.m. Mr Hide said that in fact the Minister has not answered the question. If the Minister, between 11 and 11.30, just provided in writing the same answer he provided to the House yesterday, surely that is not an answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister provided an answer. The member may not be satisfied with it, and he is entitled to take that matter further, by way of further questions in the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So that we are absolutely clear, are we now to accept that in question time, when we have put down questions in writing some hours ahead of the House meeting, it is perfectly acceptable for a Minister simply to stand and say: “I’ll let you know later.”? Are we to understand that that answer would stand, and at some point the Minister could decide whether to provide an answer to that member? Surely the questions are asked by the whole House, and it becomes an interest of the entire Parliament to have that answer?

I suggest that members are now starting to trifle yet again with the point of order procedure. You have clearly ruled on this matter. Answers have been provided. I can assure the member that the Minister was not trying to avoid giving answers. The information was not available in time. Every effort was made by the Minister to get an answer in time. The convention of this House is very clear: when a supplementary answer is given later, it is given to the member who asked the question.

We have an amazing situation here—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please come to the point of order.

Yes, it is this. The Leader of the House is saying that the Minister did not have enough time to discover on what date he learnt a piece of information. How hard is it for a “Minister of Information”—well, he is the “Minister for Information”—I mean the Minister of Māori Affairs, to find out when he discovered something, given that he cannot do it in 24 hours?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 130/2 concerning written replies. It states in part: “Ministers are under an obligation to the member concerned to follow up with a full reply as soon as possible thereafter.” That is the ruling that was given in 1995, and the ruling stands.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification on that point because this is the confusion. The Minister used the word “directly”, and it is a question of whether that means directly in time, and that is fairly vague. It is almost akin to saying “shortly after”, because we actually do not know what it means.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was directed by me to provide a reply as soon as reasonably possible. He did so between 11.00 and 11.30 today. As far as I am concerned, although it might not satisfy the questioner, that is a matter between the questioner and the Minister.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask, and I will ask you again, whether you will go away and consider your ruling—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes I will; I am sorry, I will—

—because I just want to make the point that with a written question, where a Minister does not answer the question within the time frame, it is not uncommon for members to come down here and list the questions off to you. You undertake to make inquiries with the Minister’s office, and some action is taken. I think that that sort of approach should be taken where a Minister says in the House that he or she will answer something, and never does. A member should be able to come here after a certain time—it may be a shorter period of time because it is a question on notice—and raise it with you. I just ask you to consider that, Mr Speaker, as part of your considerations on this issue.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have said I will consider it; I shall.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This point of order is in support of you, and indeed in support of the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen. The Minister did answer one question. But what I have been talking about is a second question that I asked in the House to which the Minister said he would directly get back to me. I am afraid he has not addressed that question at all. That is my point. I am happy with the answer that he has addressed. What I am not happy with is that one of my questions has not been addressed at all.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Now that is something the member can take up with me afterwards.