Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Remedies for Incorrect Information in Answers

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It follows on from the ruling that you gave last Tuesday in respect of information given in replying to supplementary questions. I think it is an important matter about how information that is incorrect in answers to supplementary questions to the House is corrected—whether it goes through the process of the Minister correcting an answer or whether members have to write to you regarding a breach of privilege. I do not want to get into a debating matter, but I will use an example of the wider point about the order that Opposition members should follow.

Last Thursday there was a question on the numbers involved in early childhood education, on which the Minister of Education supplied a number for the children who participate. Today during the estimates hearing, the Minister who had given that answer said that when she gave that answer in the House about all children participating, she was referring only to 5-year-olds. So the information that had been given in response to the questioner in last Wednesday’s question time was no longer correct, and I have the Hansard of that.

We have written to you previously about the information given in answer to supplementary questions, and you made a point that I think is a reasonable one: that sometimes if a Minister has to answer four, five, or six supplementary questions and data or statistics are required, it is not always possible to be exactly correct in giving that information, so it is not a technical breach of privilege. But where do we stand, and what order of process should we follow, if a Minister gives a different set of information at an estimates hearing that clearly says the information given in the previous week was not correct, unwittingly or otherwise? Should the Opposition members write to you complaining of a breach of privilege—which might seem to be a step too far, because it probably is not a breach of privilege in the sense of that term—or do we rely on a Minister coming down and correcting an answer by taking a point of order after he or she has admitted in another forum of the House’s proceedings that an answer was not correct? If the Minister has not corrected the information in the House, the time has now passed for us to draw it to your attention by way of a breach of privilege complaint. That leaves us in no man’s land in that regard. I would appreciate your consideration of that point.

The first point is that no one would want the Hon Darren Hughes to be left in no man’s land.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha.

I mean that seriously. The point has been made that a different piece of information given at a select committee this morning could be interpreted as meaning that an answer given last week to a supplementary question was not the full information that could be disclosed. I am sure, since all members of this House are honourable members, that the Minister concerned will have heard the concern from the Labour Party about this and will look at the answer to the supplementary question as soon as possible to find out whether the information that was given at that time is inconsistent with the information given at the select committee this morning. Unfortunately, we cannot possibly know the full context of the discussion this morning, nor do we have the supplementary question that was asked last week before us today. I suggest that the Hon Darren Hughes has done a very good job of making sure that at his first opportunity he has made it clear that he believes there might be the need for some clarification. I am sure that once the Minister has a similar opportunity to consider these matters, if a clarification is required it will be forthcoming.

I want to speak briefly on the timing issue, and I am really asking you to consider when the first opportunity is. This was drawn to the Minister’s attention at the select committee this morning. My colleague waited until there had been two other points of order, to see that the Minister was not rising to make the correction that we expected.

I am happy to make the correction; I was intending to. In fact, I went straight back from the select committee, and that was the first opportunity that I had to correct the Hansard. My words were “54,222 children attended”, and I thought I had said “reported attended”, which is a different statistic. I accept that I should have said “reported attended”, which would have actually been correct. I apologise to the House for that.

I thank the honourable Minister. It is an interesting issue, and I appreciate the input of all members. I thank the Minister for correcting her answer. Obviously, correcting an answer is a matter for the Minister to fix up, and Ministers should do it without delay. They should come to the House and seek to do so by way of a personal explanation.

I appreciate the way that the Hon Darren Hughes has raised the issue, because I think we do accept that at times, in the haste and in the short time to think about, and provide an answer to, a supplementary question, sometimes unintentional errors are made with data. That is why it is important that Ministers should correct them at the earliest opportunity.

I accept the point, again, that the Hon Darren Hughes made that these matters are not normally to do with privilege. The test for a complaint about privilege is quite a high one. But I am concerned about the reckless use of information. Members should all be careful with information, and that is why I listened carefully to the point of order that the member made. I think there is a difference between getting something wrong and deliberately misleading the House. All I can ask is that when Ministers become aware that they may have provided incorrect information in an answer, they move to correct it at the earliest opportunity. I would certainly appreciate their doing that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure you did not mean any offence in what you just said. But I have to say that when someone makes a mistake it is a mistake; it is not a reckless use of information. I think Ministers would not want the Speaker to convey a message to the public that there was a general reckless use of information—far from it. This was a genuine mistake. It has been corrected, and I think when you look at the correction, you will see that it is about the interpretation or the use of one word. I think that is particularly pedantic, but none the less it is factual material. However, to suggest that that was a reckless use of the information is quite wrong.

I apologise to the member if I implied that in this particular case. But I assure the Hon Gerry Brownlee that matters have come to my attention from members of the Opposition by way of letter in respect of the privilege of the House. It has been my view on the odd occasion that the use of information has been what I would call reckless. I have not considered it to be a matter that reaches the bar required for it to be a matter of privilege, but I am troubled by the reckless use of information anywhere in the House. I do not mean by just Ministers; I mean anywhere in the House. This is the House of Representatives and we are Parliament. Members should be careful with information. But I certainly did not mean to imply that the Hon Anne Tolley had been reckless with information on this occasion. I accept the point made by the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the discussion that has been had about correcting information when it has been incorrectly put before the House, whether or not that be by accident, but the clarification and correction that the Minister has made is not the correction that—

The member cannot now litigate, by way of a point of order, such a matter. The Minister has corrected her answer in the way that she sees fit, and that is not a matter for litigation by way of a point of order in the House. Let me make that very clear.