Points of Order — Oral Questions—Obligation to Answer

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: On a different matter?

It is a very different matter. I was not aware that you were going to be ruling on the other matter, but I want to raise with you an issue regarding a Minister’s obligation to answer questions—the public interest test obligation that exists within Speakers’ rulings for Ministers in answering questions. The relevant Speaker’s ruling—I had it here a minute ago, but I have been flicking around looking at the other Speakers’ rulings that you have been referring to—

💬 Hon Member: You’ve lost it.

—and I have lost it, but actually I have found it again, sorry. Speaker’s ruling 193/3, a ruling by Speaker Wilson, lists down some of the matters that could be considered in a Minister refusing to answer a question in the public interest. It is things such as “privacy, commercial sensitivity, or national security”, which sets a reasonably high bar for a Minister refusing to answer a question in the public interest.

The question that I want you to give some consideration to, Mr Speaker, and possibly come back to the House with a further answer to, because it does actually cut to the heart of ministerial accountability, is whether the Government’s communications calendar is a sufficient test of the public interest in refusing to answer.

The illustration I will give you is the questions my colleague Jacinda Ardern asked of the Minister for Social Development yesterday about the creation of a Ministry for Vulnerable Children. The Minister said that no such decisions had been made, and that she was jumping the gun to raise the matter. The Minister then announced that very thing today. That can only have happened if the decisions had earlier been taken, unless there was an emergency Cabinet meeting last night to do so. Therefore, the only justification for her not answering the question yesterday could have been the public interest test. I would put it to you that if Ministers can put forward inconvenience around their communications calendar as a public interest test, then they could avoid answering almost any question in the House.

I thank the member for his contribution, again. I listened carefully to the question and the answer that was given. It clearly was not an inaccurate answer. The Minister chose to answer it in the way she did, and I am aware of an announcement that has been made within 24 hours of that. I think the Minister’s answer will be judged accordingly. I will give further consideration, and may come back to the member.

I do not want to prolong things today, obviously. The Government has got good work to do, and the Opposition clearly wants answers to some questions, by the sound of it. But if you are going to give that consideration, I would appreciate the opportunity to give our view on that particular issue. I think there are a number of things that could be added to that consideration by yourself, and not limited to the annoyance of the Opposition.

I would be delighted to hear the view of the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He is welcome to come and see me any time he likes.