Points of Order — Oral Questions—Ministerial Responsibility for Defunct Portfolios

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without wanting to relitigate an answer you gave earlier, it does raise a constitutional question—or something that might come up as a constitutional question. As Mr Brownlee said, the Government is not enduring. If a ministerial portfolio has been disestablished, and yet there have been actions taken under that portfolio and decisions made, for which the Government of the day took responsibility, surely the Crown has an ongoing responsibility, and Ministers who are appointed by the Crown inherit those responsibilities as each new Government comes in. So I am wondering, Mr Speaker, whether you could give some thought to the process that might be undertaken if the situation arises in the future—where a portfolio under a previous Government has been disestablished, yet there are matters pertaining to it that come up under a subsequent Government—so that there be some method by which the Crown addresses that through ministerial responsibility.

I have seen some precedent for this in the past, and the questions have gone to the Prime Minister if no one else is clearly responsible.

I think there are two questions here. One is whether it is a change of ministerial portfolio or name and some additional responsibilities inside the term of a current Government. That would be one matter. But if it is to be, as Mr Prosser is, I think, suggesting, that we would look across actions taken in a ministerial portfolio by previous Governments that no longer are in authority, then that would be quite a different matter. For example, it would be just completely inappropriate to look back in history and start asking questions about the activities of the titular position, Treasurer.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am dealing with a point of order—the Hon David Parker.

Speaking to the point raised by Mr Brownlee, which was not the one that was raised by Mr Prosser, I do not think that is correct, and I think that there are Speakers’ rulings—and if there are not, there should be—that a Government is responsible for its actions, including in periods prior to the last election. Otherwise the Government of the day, after the election, could refuse to answer questions for its conduct the day before an election. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the next point of order is from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were listening to a point of order, and then the person speaking to it, namely Mr Brownlee, decided to insult someone here. Frankly, I do not see why we should have to listen to a—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. There was no insult given that I saw or heard.

Mr Speaker, the flaw with Mr Parker’s argument is that Governments change. So under an MMP system consecutive Governments are unlikely to look the same as they did previously. So I think that does pose an interesting question for you to consider over a period of time, but I think it would be unfortunate if the conclusion was that the look-back in ministerial responsibility could go beyond the term of any particular elected Government—in other words, the 3 years.

In answer to Mr Prosser’s point, I will give the matter further thought because I think it is interesting, and, having gone through both Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders prior to question time and anticipating there may be points of order raised, to be honest, I think that there are not a lot, particularly in Speakers’ Rulings, of previous rulings about this. I think the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is helpful to us, and it was mentioned in one of the responses I gave to Mr Parker. I think a good way forward for Mr Parker’s situation is to consider questions now to the Minister for innovation, business, and employment or to the Prime Minister. But once a particular portfolio has folded, if there are any fiscal attachments to it, that Budget would still be able to be tracked back through an alternative Minister. I will give further thought to it. It is an interesting question that has been raised, and it may require an adjustment to either the Standing Orders or Speakers’ Rulings.