Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level

I undertook to reflect on the complaints that I have been receiving on the level of noise and interjection during question time. I have received such complaints from members and from the public, and the matter has been discussed at meetings of the Business Committee.

Interjections are forms of intervention that arise in the course of a debate. They are part of the interchange that goes on when a member is making a speech in the House and another member challenges what is being said. Strictly speaking, they are not part of the question process, which is confined to one member asking a question of another member—usually a Minister—and the latter replying. Speaker’s ruling 150/1, given by Speaker Tapsell in 1996, makes this clear.

But, as Speaker Tapsell says, members do interject during question time. It would be unrealistic to expect it to be otherwise. He went on to say that this is permitted as long as the interjections do not become disruptive. Since that ruling was given, a practice has developed of Speakers trying to enforce an even stricter rule while a question is being asked of tolerating no interjections at all. This has led to a number of members being ordered to leave the Chamber.

I have more recently sought to apply Speaker Tapsell’s ruling in its original form. As long as interjections are not disruptive they will be permitted, regardless of whether they occur while a question is being asked or answered. But I stress that that is as long as interjections are not disruptive. Unfortunately, we have experienced interjections from a number of members that are, or at least appear to be, concerted. Concerted interjections become barracking, and barracking cannot be tolerated at all, for it makes it impossible for members and persons listening to Parliament to follow proceedings.

I therefore ask members to note that I am reverting fully to Speaker Tapsell’s 1996 ruling. Interjections will be permitted during question time, as long as they are reasonable and not disorderly in themselves, but concerted or widespread interjection will not be permitted, and will be dealt with, as appropriate, by the Speaker. I ask for the cooperation of all members in this regard.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened closely to your ruling on that matter and I want to just raise this point with you if you intend to apply a stricter application of the Speaker’s ruling. I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 377(2)(b) in particular, on the content of answers, which states that replies shall not contain inferences, imputations, etc. We have already had a case today where Mr Cullen, Leader of the House, was taking a point of order and strayed from the point to the situation where you got a lot of objections and interjections from this side of the House, because he went outside the Standing Orders. If you expect this House—and, in particular, the Opposition—to understand your ruling and to have fewer interjections and less volume, then it will be very important that we have the application of the Standing Orders in regard to the Minister’s questions, and, particularly, we need you to intervene when the Prime Minister or a Minister strays off the subject matter when replying. Otherwise, we will continue to have disorder in the House.

I thank the member. I just point out that in that case we were not talking about question time; that was a point of order when there should have been no interjections from anyone, and although Mr Brownlee was heard in silence, Dr Cullen was not. I would draw members’ attention also to Standing Order 371 about the content of questions, as well as answers. They are very similar. I agree with the member; if, in fact, there could be an abiding by both the Standing Orders, it would lead to a more orderly time during question time. I would also point out—and a copy of the ruling will be available—that it is, in fact, a less strict interpretation than the one that had been given before.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand from the new ruling you have given that interjections during questions as well as answers will be tolerated. I have absolutely no difficulty with your ruling in respect of Speaker Tapsell’s judgment contained in Speaker’s ruling 150/1—that if interjections completely disrupt the House then, absolutely, it is your right to intervene.

But you are substantially changing the balance of power within this Parliament with your ruling, because when a member asks a question, we can see from Hansard that the amount of time he or she has in that question is only a fraction—usually on average about one-sixth—of the length of an answer. As long as I have been a member of this House, the balancing factor in that 6:1 ratio during times of speaking has been the fact that members’ questions are heard in silence and that interjections are allowed, providing they are rare and reasonable, in respect of answers. So I want to get some clarification from you, Madam Speaker, about why you are changing the balance within this Parliament between the Opposition and Government around this key issue of questions.

I am not changing the balance. I am reverting to what was the practice—which changed, I understand from doing my research—when MMP came in. After a while some smaller parties in this House were not accorded the same amount of courtesy when they asked their questions; therefore Speaker Hunt began a practice of more interpretation. I agree entirely with the member that interjections for both questions and answers should be rare and reasonable.

I am attempting to ensure that we do not get into the ridiculous situation that I have found myself in, where people have been almost entrapping others who have coughed, laughed, or made some interjection that was perhaps not appropriate, and the issue therefore has became not the purpose of the rule but in fact its strict application. I just ask members to take time to actually consider what I have said, and I would very much appreciate any comments they have to be referred through their whips to the Business Committee.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just reflecting on your ruling and its implications, I ask what the position will now be in respect of interjections on points of order. If you are going to open up this cage completely, it seems to me that you are going to encourage exactly what you do not want.

I can tell the member that it will be the same—there will be no intervention at all—if that helps him. This is only for questions, which is why I have made it clear and why I suggest that members do read what I have said.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two points I wish to raise, because the ruling that you have given is a very significant change to the practice of this Parliament during question time. My first point concerns whether there is any connection between this significant change in the balance between the Opposition and the Government and the tabling of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion of no confidence in yourself, and—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No, I can assure the member that I get the point. If he consults with his whips and checks with Hansard, he will realise that this issue has been around for some time. Before the end of the last session, in fact, I had raised it and I had sought some guidance and assistance from members in the House. It was specifically raised by the Hon Peter Dunne and, as in accordance with normal practice when a ruling is sought, the Speaker tries to give that ruling as soon as possible afterwards—which is what I have done.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have limited, in some respects, the way interjections are to be made during answers to questions. But this whole issue has arisen because of the way you have interpreted addressing the question. It seems to me that if a Minister has just tangentially referred to the subject matter of the question, then that has been enough to be considered as addressing the question. But so often that has caused enormous frustration, and I suggest that another possible and reasonable interpretation of addressing the question would be to actually address the way it is asked and the answering of that question. That would be addressing the question, as opposed to the practice that has developed of making a tangential reference to the subject matter, which is always going to lead to annoyance and frustration for members on this side of the House and, frankly, a lack of accountability by Ministers in relation to reasonable questions by members.

In fact, this is not a new practice or a new issue, at all. Indeed, the fact that you are able to refer to quite longstanding Speakers’ rulings on addressing the question is precisely because this has always been an issue between Ministers and members opposite in the House, and some day the member may have the chance to experience rulings from the other side of the equation.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order. Do members wish to remain in this Chamber?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I am in the middle of a point of order.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: We’re hearing the point of order. Would that member please be seated until the member has had the courtesy—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You are objecting to my colleague interjecting because the imputation made by Dr Cullen was a smart alec remark quite outside the Standing Orders.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but the member does not have the floor. I must say that when points were being raised by members on that side of the House, interjections were not made, yet one saw that they could have been. So I ask for some tolerance in the House, and for members to allow the member to complete in silence his comment on the point of order.

As I said, the notion that there is a requirement to address the question is, of course, what the Standing Orders actually state, and the rulings on that have been repeated endlessly almost all the time that I have been in Parliament, as people have raised points of order about the answers given by Ministers. But what we have just heard and what Dr Mapp—and, indeed, Mr Carter—said earlier raises another matter that has come up frequently in National Party points of order: that if the National Party does not like what is happening in the House, it reserves the right to break the Standing Orders and to engage in endless barracking and a barrage of noise. That clearly is a breach of the Standing Orders and of good order within the House. If members have an issue, that issue is to be raised by way of a point of order, not by way of collective behaviour—some of it clearly orchestrated in advance of the House sitting—in order to try to undermine your authority.

I thank the members. I think the member who raised the original point of order should also note that I have frequently asked Ministers to address the question when an unsatisfactory reply has been given. But—more important—I have also asked members to address the Standing Order. I am a little surprised that they have not taken an opportunity to do so, because to some extent it is the way in which the Standing Order is framed that is the problem. I would be more than happy for members to take that opportunity themselves—because it is the members who make the Standing Orders—so that we can get some clarification of this.

Madam Speaker, I seek the leave of the House that your ruling be suspended so that the issue can be considered by the Business Committee and the respective caucuses of the parties, with a view to its being either confirmed or amended in some way that would reduce the prospect of the disorder that I sincerely believe your ruling will bring.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. I note that for over a month now I have been seeking precisely what Dr Worth has now sought. I ask members that when they are given the invitation to be consulted and to participate in determining how this House should be run, they take it up at that time.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This may be an appropriate time to raise another issue. This issue actually lies, I think, at the heart of much of what we have just heard. Reference was made in an earlier point of order to Ministers addressing the question. I submit to you that the series of Speakers’ rulings—made by your predecessor, in the main—about addressing the question are in fact the core of the problem. Prior to that, one notes, Speakers such as Mr Tapsell, Mr Harrison, Mr Kidd, and others were very consistent in the view that they were not responsible for the content of an answer given. I refer you in particular to Speaker’s ruling 157/1, in which Mr Speaker Tapsell does introduce some conditions as to when a Minister may be called to order during the course of a response.

I submit that the series of rulings that go beyond that and say, in effect: “I am not responsible for the content of an answer. All I am responsible for is whether the question has been addressed.”—which was the import of Mr Hunt’s rulings—have, in fact, caused the problem that we have been working our way round for some time now. This may be an opportune time for you to look at that whole issue of not being responsible—quite properly—for the content of an answer, and how that squares with the requirement that Ministers address the question. It seems to me that the two positions are virtually contradictory, which is the cause of, I think, a lot of the aggravation we have had in recent months. Madam Speaker, you may wish to consider a more lengthy ruling on that point in due course.

Madam Speaker, I would like to refer you specifically to Speaker’s ruling 154/1, whereby Speaker Hunt said: “Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” Frankly, it appears so often to members on this side of the House that that is hardly observed with any seriousness by members of the Government. I would urge that this area be looked at carefully if you want the House to be more orderly. This is the time of accountability of Ministers and they must take that seriously, but so often they do not.