Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before we start I would like you to consider the matter of question No. 4. When the question was lodged this morning it was addressed to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, when the first sheet was produced by the Clerk’s Office the question was still addressed to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, and it was changed some time later.

If you look at the content of that question you will see that it deals in particular with the actions of the Associate Minister, and not of the Minister himself. I call your attention to Speaker’s ruling 129/4, which states: “The Minister primarily concerned is presumed to be the person to decide whether it is a question related to that portfolio or whether it is misdirected.” That leads to the question as to whether the Associate Minister in this case has seen a question on the sheet about the actions that she is alleged to have taken and decided that it was inappropriate for her to answer the question, and therefore requested that it be transferred.

We get to a little bit of a ridiculous situation where we are expected to accept that although at the time the Associate Minister was acting as the Minister, the Minister should answer the questions for the actions that she took as the Acting Minister, and although she is the Associate Minister the Minister, who was on leave at the time and cannot possibly know about these matters, is required to answer the question. That seems to be somewhat abusive of the process.

I refer the member to the very next Speaker’s ruling, 129/5. Members can transfer at any time. The member was Acting Minister at the time and took some official action. Any question raised subsequently should be addressed to the Minister who holds the portfolio responsibility. When an Acting Minister has been appointed that person is, while the appointment continues, the Minister for all purposes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I then ask for your advice on that matter in respect of Speaker’s ruling 130/1. I submit to you that that provision does apply and it is appropriate for you to disallow the transfer, noting that it was the comments of the Associate Minister specifically that were particular to her about events that brought about these matters, but, more particularly, that that original question was accepted by the Clerk to go to the Associate Minister and has only since that time been changed by the Government.

I refer to Speaker’s ruling 130/3, which answers that point fully.

Provision of Phones in Chamber—Allocation

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend, some of us will know, there was a reshuffle in the National Party’s line-up.

💬 Opposition Member: That’s not a point of order!

It would be a point of order if that member would keep quiet and wait for me to state my point of order. It is a very, very sound point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All members are entitled to raise points of order, but I stress that they must be points of order.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to set the scene. The reality is that every party in this Parliament is entitled to certain provisions, such as one phone for the leader and one for that party’s whip. Right now we have phones dotted up and down here, and I do not know what is going on or whether special provisions have been made for a party that cannot make up its mind who is doing what, where, and when.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that his point of order is only barely there. The phone was put in for the whip, and his whip is entitled to have one—the member’s own whip has one.

That is true, but what about that phone over there?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will be examining that when I come to look at it—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Member: But there is not one there.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that that has been correctly pointed out to members, and now having been advised of that, I advise Mr Peters that there is not a phone there.