Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions, Effect on Supplementary Questions

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before we get on to the first question, I would like to raise with you in advance of question No. 11, to allow you to give the matter some thought, a question—and it will take me a minute to get to it—and it is, effectively, whether the breadth of supplementary questions is restricted as a result of the transfer of a question.

As I have indicated to your office, there is a degree of concern at the transfer of question No. 11. We are not asking for the longstop provisions that are outlined on page 558 of the third edition of McGee to be brought in—I think those are the ones, particularly Speakers’ rulings 151/5 and 151/6—because we do not think that necessarily they apply in this case, although it is close. I also say that given the fact that the Government has a right to transfer, we accept there has to be a wording change in order to make sense of the fact that it is Mr Foss, and not Mr Key, answering the question.

But the quote that is given, which is the basis for the question, says “the vast array of appointments we make.” The Prime Minister indicated that it was the question of who “we” applies to, when the question was transferred from the Prime Minister, who chairs the appointments committee and chairs Cabinet, and therefore is responsible, as he has indicated, for a broad range of appointments. He, I think, referred to New Zealand Post. Certainly, he did refer to diplomatic appointments of Mike Moore—an area in which, Mr Speaker, I am sure you have some interest. We could, and were intending to, raise other appointments, because of the nature of the quotation, which would be available if the Prime Minister was answering—for example, the appropriateness of the appointment of Sir Wira Gardiner to head the consultation process. What I am seeking is an assurance from you that Opposition—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members know they must not interject.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it a point of order?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is a point of order that has been raised.

What I am seeking is an assurance from you that Opposition supplementary questions will not be restricted to broadcasting matters and broadcasting appointments, as a result of the decision of the Prime Minister to transfer this question.

I appreciate that the issue the member has raised is an issue of order, and it is an issue that is not uncommonly a matter of concern in this House. But I think the member must accept that, just as questioners often may try to pin a question to a certain Minister—maybe the Prime Minister—and try to apply certain tactics to achieve that, it is the Government’s responsibility in terms of which Minister answers a question. That is, I think, accepted, except should—as, and the member has already alluded to this, Speakers’ rulings 151/5 and 151/6 point out, and as, I think, I have also reiterated in this House—a question be transferred away from a Minister who was the only Minister who could possibly have the information necessary to answer that question. That would be unacceptable. That is also, I think, accepted.

In this case, what thought has to be given to is if the intent of the questioner was to ask about appointments, then the primary question needs to be focused exactly on that, and it is the reality that the responsible Minister should be the Minister who answers it. Trying to use a tactic to get at that process may or may not be helpful. On this occasion I must rule that I believe that there is nothing untoward in this question having been transferred to the Minister of Broadcasting. The question simply asks whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement the Prime Minister made. That is the question. I will have to listen to the supplementary questions as they arise, but that is the substance of that question—whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement the Prime Minister made. I realise this is a difficult issue. I realise that trying to direct questions where questioners want them directed is not always easy, but my best advice would be—not that the Speaker should be giving advice—that if the substance of the question is serious, the question should really be based on that substance, and the responsible Minister has to be the one whom it is addressed to. That is by far the safest way to get questions answered by the responsible Minister.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you came close but did not quite give the assurance that we were seeking, and that is that the supplementary questions we could make relate to the appointments the Prime Minister makes, not the appointments that the Minister of Broadcasting makes, because that is where the quote comes from.

The issue is the member must now reflect on the question being asked. The question being asked is whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement made by the Prime Minister. That is all the question is. I will have to listen to the supplementary questions as they come up, but that is what the question asks, and the supplementary questions, obviously, have to relate to why the Minister of Broadcasting might agree with the Prime Minister or might not agree with the Prime Minister. But that is what the question asks.