Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Members

On 3 August I promised to reflect on issues that arose during questions to non-Ministers. The first related to whether a deputy chairperson may answer a question to a chairperson of a select committee in the latter’s absence. In the case of questions to Ministers, any other Minister or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary may answer a question on behalf of a Minister who is absent—Standing Order 376(2). There is no right to answer a question to any other member who is absent. Thus, in principle, a deputy chairperson cannot reply on behalf of an absent chairperson. However, this is qualified by Standing Order 203(1), which provides as a general rule that if the chairperson is absent during a “meeting”, or is absent from New Zealand, or if there is a vacancy in the office of chairperson, then the deputy chairperson “performs the duties and exercises the authority of the chairperson”. In those circumstances—and only in those circumstances—the deputy chairperson effectively is the chairperson who can answer questions.

Mr Finlayson argued that the word “meeting” in Standing Order 203 includes a meeting of the House. He referred to a reference to a meeting in Standing Order 12 to support this. I cannot accept this argument. The meeting referred to in Standing Order 12 is a meeting of a new Parliament, not of the House. Meetings of the House are correctly referred to as “sittings”—members can see the heading to chapter 2 and numerous other references in the Standing Orders. In Standing Order 203, “meeting” refers to a meeting of a select committee. If a chairperson is absent from a meeting of the committee, the deputy chairperson acts as chairperson at that meeting of the committee. But that does not mean that the deputy chairperson can assume the chairperson’s functions in this Chamber.

The question to the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee was therefore properly postponed when she was absent from the House and attending a meeting of the committee.

The second issue that I want to comment on is the breadth of questions that can be put to members under this procedure. Questions to Ministers are dealt with under Standing Order 369. A very wide latitude is permitted for members to lodge questions to Ministers on any “public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected”. Questions to other members are put under Standing Order 370. By contrast, their ambit is defined much more narrowly. They can relate only to any bill, motion, or public matter “connected with the business of the House” of which the member has charge. Most—though not all—questions to other members are questions to select committee chairpersons, and page 142 of Speakers’ Rulings describes the limited scope for such questions. The same narrow scope applies to other types of questions, such as questions to members in charge of a bill. Questions to Ministers are much wider than are questions to other members.

Finally, in the exercise of their discretion to permit supplementary questions under Standing Order 378, Speakers do not normally allow more than one or, at most, two supplementary questions to each question to another member. This again contrasts with the practice on questions to Ministers when a much more extensive exchange is permitted.