Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Parliament functions well, and Government functions well, in this country when we all accept the premise that the Government has the right to advance its business, and we accept that the Standing Orders are structured so that a Government can get its business done. But part of Government is accountability, and the role of the Opposition is, in a public way, to hold Ministers to account.

So I want to make it very clear that we are most unhappy that a Minister who is presiding over a portfolio—the police portfolio—and who is currently coming under considerable public scrutiny, is not in the Chamber today to answer questions set down to him. We note that neither is the Prime Minister present, when it might reasonably have been expected that a confidence question would be asked of her, and nor is the Deputy Prime Minister present, who normally fills in for her. For that matter, nor are the third, fourth, and fifth-ranking Ministers in Cabinet present today.

So we have a couple of options open to us. The first is to seek leave to defer the questions to be put to those Ministers, perhaps until tomorrow or Saturday, or maybe Sunday afternoon when they might have some time in which to be accountable to the public of this country, or we could equally decide to use the Standing Orders just as the Government is using them—to its own ends—which would of course deny legislative time and, therefore, opportunity to the Government. Neither of those two options should be seen as desirable.

Given that the Government, it would seem, has used the Standing Orders today to try to avoid Ministers—particularly the Minister of Police, George Hawkins—coming under scrutiny, and given that that Minister has fled the capital along with the Prime Minister and most of the Labour front bench, at a time they are in a tight situation, I seek leave for the questions set down to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Police to be held over until the next sitting day that those members are able to be present in the House to answer them.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought—[Interruption] The member would like clarification?

The clarification I would like is to make sure that the member is not asking for those to be additional questions on the next sitting day, because he did not make that clear.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for those specific questions to be deferred to the next sitting day. Is that right?

That is right. That, of course, would not alter the allocation of questions on the next sitting day.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make a point that follows on from what Mr Brownlee said, but it is a new point, and it is on your role of upholding the rights and privileges of this Parliament.

For some time in this Parliament, we have been questioning the Minister of Police over the emergency 111 system. The answer first of all was that there was no problem and that resources were adequate. The answer then became that everything was awaiting the delivery of a report. I do not need to explain to you how important the 111 system is to the operation of the New Zealand Police and the confidence that New Zealanders have in the police. Finally, after being delayed and suffering obfuscation for months, the report has been released. We turn up to Parliament, and what do we discover? The Minister of Police has done a runner because he does not care about his portfolio or about the people of New Zealand. The Prime Minister has done a runner.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just come to the point of order.

I would expect you to be suggesting in a gentle way to the Government that when a report of some note comes out, such as this one, which is of some concern to the public of New Zealand, Ministers actually front up to this Parliament and give this Parliament and the people of New Zealand the respect that they deserve by answering the questions that we have set down.

My first point would be that that is not a point of order. On many occasions it has been ruled that the Government is treated as a whole and that any Minister can answer on behalf of any other Minister. On the specific question, I am advised that Mr Hawkins has a long-standing engagement dealing with the matters to do with the Bay of Plenty floods. It was set down some time ago, and people have been arranging it. He did not control the release of the documentation yesterday. I am not sure whether the member was here, but there was a large debate held throughout yesterday afternoon on the matter. So the idea that the Government is not fronting up is clearly not correct. I would also point out that no major party in the House—and, in fact, no major party that will be here after the election—currently has a leader in the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

No, I have heard enough. Thank you very much. Let me rule on the first point of order, please. If the member has another point, I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity for other points to be put. I would just note on the point of order that, as members are aware, the Standing Orders in this Parliament mean that questions can be put to any Minister on any day. That is what the Standing Orders provide. I would also just note, however, that in other Parliaments the practice is different, and Ministers are rostered to give answers to any questions that come up. Invariably, under our system, there will be occasions when Ministers are not available under our Standing Orders, so the Standing Orders do provide that questions can be put to any Minister on any day.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was an interesting piece of information from Trevor Mallard telling us that the reason George Hawkins is not in the House today is that he has for a long time planned to be at, I believe, the Bay of Plenty civil defence, whatever that might, in fact, be.

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

I have in front of me the ministerial diaries, which are published each week so that the media can know where Ministers are. On the Thursday, 12 May page, there are no public appointments for Mr Hawkins anywhere around the country, but on Friday, 13 May—an appropriate day for Mr Hawkins to be anywhere—there is an appointment for Mr Hawkins to be in the Bay of Plenty, launching the programme that he has put forward a day.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am still not sure what the point of order is. What is the point of order?

Mr Mallard has misled the House. Further, we now find that Mr Hawkins, who has stood in the House on numerous occasions and said that he is not responsible for, and that he does not get involved in, operational matters, is today supplanting himself in the midst of an operational matter at the Northern Communications Centre. There is no excuse for that Minister not being here, and we would ask you to indicate to the Government that it is not good for the House to continue this practice.

I note that we are getting into a debate on the movements of the Minister of Police, under the guise of a point of order. I think the member has made his point, so perhaps he would now like to proceed to ask his question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I am not disputing your ruling. I am not disputing the point made by the Minister of Education in relation to the previous point, either. But I invite you to consider going a step further in your advice to the House, either formally in the Chamber or perhaps informally through the various channels available to you. I draw on Standing Order 80, which makes it clear that you are responsible for the order and decorum of the Chamber. Notwithstanding the point made by Mr Mallard that Governments are able to pass the parcel to any Minister to handle a particular issue, I think that if you followed that to its literal conclusion you could, for example, have all Ministers bar, say, Judith Tizard absent from the House on a particular day, leaving her to answer all the questions from Opposition members. I submit that that would be not only disorderly but also likely to detract from the decorum of the Chamber.

It seems to me that somewhere there must be a line where you indicate that the decorum and the order of the House are suffering as a consequence of Ministers failing to be available when it is reasonable to expect them to be so. The Deputy Prime Minister has already let it be known—and has acted accordingly—that it is legitimate to withdraw Ministers from the House to obstruct the Opposition in pursuing the Government. I think that in those circumstances the House could only benefit if you were to give this matter some further reflection and, either formally or informally, to give us some guidance as to how you expect Standing Order 80 to be managed.

I thank my friend for his advice to the House and remind him that there are a number of precedents in this area. One dates from the late 1990s when the then Minister of Tourism, after paying a friend of his nearly $500,000 to leave her job, absented himself from the House for days on end. The right of members to come to the House or not to come, or to have other business—[Interruption]

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Out!

Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD—is a matter that has been ruled on, on many occasions. For that member to talk about a member’s absence from the House, when he spent most of the first month of this sitting of the House outside because he had the pip with the person who sits on his left, is just classic. [Interruption]

I have just asked the Hon Chris Carter to leave for interrupting a point of order, and I am sorry to say that that is what Mr Brownlee was doing also. The member wants me to apply the rules in this Parliament fairly. I have to do so. When points of order are being made there is to be no interruption. So I am sorry, but Mr Brownlee will have to leave the Chamber. It is the only way I can conduct the business of this House fairly.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a person is making a point of order that is clearly outside the Standing Orders—and the comments of the Minister of Education in respect of my colleague Murray McCully were way outside the Standing Orders and way outside what a point of order can be—what is a member meant to do? We are meant to rely on the Speaker to intervene.

Several points of order have already been raised that are not points of order. We listen to them, and that is what I have been doing. I will allow Mr Brownlee to ask his questions, of course. That is only fair.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope I can assist the Chair. Mr Mallard made some statements that, frankly, if he had made them about me, I would not have remained quiet about, regardless of whether I was supposed to. I will remind you of what he said. I hope Mr McCully does not mind me repeating the defamation. Mr Mallard said that Mr McCully had arranged for half a million dollars to go to a friend. That is gross corruption. The statement is completely out of order. Although the Speaker listens to points of order, a Speaker would normally intervene at that point and tell a member that his or her statement is—it is right off the scale, actually. That statement happens not to be true, and it should not have been said. I am stunned that Mr McCully and his colleagues took it so meekly. Then one of them was told, because he had sort of grunted, that he would be thrown out. If Mr Brownlee is thrown out, that is just an invitation for Mr Mallard, who is Parliament’s worst offender, to get up on points of order and accuse people of corruption. He said that half a million dollars was given to a friend. That is not true, and we are supposed to take it. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that the House has not asked you to do that. The House has asked you to uphold the rules. If you are to throw Mr Brownlee out, then I trust that you will name Mr Mallard and suspend him from the House.

The rules also provide, as the member has said, that Mr McCully could have raised a point of objection. He did not do that at that time. If he wishes to do so now—if he has taken offence—then of course he can ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The reason I did not take a point of order is that we were already in a point of order, and I was intent on waiting for the point to be resolved. But since you have invited me to do so, I say that of course I have taken gross offence at the quite defamatory and untrue statement that was made.

I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I should have said that the member appointed someone, paid him—

The withdrawal and apology are without any qualification at all. [Interruption] I just make this comment, Mr Hide. We are now getting into debatable matters through the raising of points of order. [Interruption] I ask Mr Mallard to be seated. We are now getting into debatable matters under the guise of a point of order. The original point that was raised was about the absence of a Minister. I have addressed that point of order, in accordance with the Standing Orders. I now invite Mr Brownlee to ask question No. 1.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point is a simple one. When a member is asked to withdraw and apologise, he should do so immediately. You saw then from Trevor Mallard exactly what you had asked him to withdraw and apologise about. Immediately after withdrawing and apologising, he then took another point of order, simply for the purpose of having another attack on the Hon Murray McCully. It seems to me that you have to deal with that, because that was a complete abuse of, firstly, the Standing Orders, and, secondly, your authority in the Chair, when you had asked him to withdraw and apologise.

I reprimanded the member for that at the time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In support of my colleague’s submission, I say that it puts us in an interesting position when the acting Leader of the Opposition has been asked to leave the Chamber, and to return only to ask the questions on the sheet, when at the same time the very incident that the Minister was asked to withdraw and apologise for has been repeated—in a direct breach of the Standing Orders—by the adding of a qualification at the conclusion of that withdrawal and apology, yet that member still remains in the Chamber, when the acting Leader of the Opposition has been required to withdraw.

They were two different points.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that to get the record clear, I should withdraw and apologise without qualification.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have missed it, but it was clearly discernable to members on the Opposition side of the House that while my colleague Mr Brownlee was engaged in a point of order, the Minister of Education made an interjection, which I will not repeat to the House, that was designed to be insulting to Mr Brownlee. I was surprised that you did not reprimand him for that at the time, and I invite you to do so.

No, I did not hear it. However, I did hear the intervention from the Hon Chris Carter, which is why I asked him to leave the Chamber.