Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister—References Ruled Out of Order

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today you ruled out of order the original text of my colleague Mahesh Bindra’s question to the Minister of Corrections, which referred to yesterday as April Fool’s Day. The question’s original wording was accepted by the Table Office as valid. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 160/6 and Standing Order 377. Going through both those references, the question as originally put and accepted by the Table Office as valid meets all points. Can I ask you as the Speaker to give the House a ruling on this matter, because your determination now effectively rules out primary questions that reference unofficial dates such as Mother’s Day, St Patrick’s Day, and Father’s Day.

That is an interesting request that has been made by the New Zealand First member. Other days that are referred to are days that are less than ironic expressions. You could hardly suggest that Father’s Day or Mother’s Day is an ironic expression or that Easter Sunday is an ironic expression, but April Fool’s Day is most definitely an ironic expression, and that is clearly dealt with in the Standing Orders.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will allow Ron Mark if he has further to add.

This question was accepted by the Table Office as valid. The reference to April Fool’s Day might well be—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member adding anything further to the point of order?

Well, the point is that at every point of Standing Order 377 this question was within the parameters of the Standing Orders and should not have been ruled out. I think that if it is going to be, we deserve a ruling from the Chair so that, going forth, we can be better guided.

And I am only too happy to help the member. Although I accept the point made by Mr Mark that the question was initially accepted by the Table Office, I am the ultimate adjudicator as to whether a question meets the Standing Orders. On this occasion I referred to Standing Order 380(1)(b) and considered that it did have an ironic expression. I further considered Standing Order 380(1)(c) and thought that such a discreditable reference brought this House into disrepute. On that basis I ruled the question out of order. I gave the member a chance to change it and refer to the date being 1 April. The member then accepted my judgment and the question was submitted and accepted on that basis.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is this a fresh point of order?

It is a fresh point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Good. I look forward to it.

If that is your ruling, then how come yesterday members were able to raise that in their supplementary questions and were not ruled out by you, but a day later—today—they are? What is the consistency there?

I am only too happy to explain it to the member. The consistency is that I have an opportunity to study every primary question before it is ultimately accepted. When it comes to supplementary questions, I do not have any pre-warning about where a supplementary question may go. Over time we have seen all members of this House allow more political debate to creep into their supplementary questions, which leaves me, as I have explained to the member on other occasions, two choices: to simply rule the question out of order, which I think I did on two occasions yesterday or Tuesday, or to accept that the question contains some politics or irony in it and give the Minister then answering that question more licence in his or her answer.