Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Answers, Amending Only by Personal Explanation

Yesterday Chris Hipkins raised in the House the issue of Ministers clarifying earlier answers to questions on subsequent days. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has also written to me about this matter. Having considered it very carefully overnight, I think they are both absolutely right. An incorrect answer to a question cannot be corrected or modified by way of clarification. I remind members of Speaker’s ruling 200/3 “A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up.”, Speaker’s ruling 200/4 “The normal course of action as soon as one becomes aware of an error in an oral answer is to take the earliest opportunity to explain.”, and, finally, Speaker’s ruling 200/5 makes it clear that “A correction to an answer can only be taken by personal explanation …”. In future, an attempt to correct an answer by way of clarification on a subsequent day will not be acceptable, and I want to thank the members who have raised this issue with me.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I have an interjection like that again on what is an important matter I will, unfortunately, be asking that member to leave.

No one would notice. Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the first comment from Mr Brownlee, but I suspect it was not helpful to the order of the House. Can the Minister move immediately to his point of order.

I understand that on 17 August—that is, Tuesday—probably later in the day, the Rt Hon Winston Peters did as you advised him he should in the House and lodged a breach of privilege in relation to this particular matter, such was his insistence that he was right and everyone else was wrong. Once that letter of privilege was received by you, it should have triggered Speaker’s ruling 220/6, which states that “[Once] the matter of privilege is before the Speaker, then it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever until the Speaker has made the relevant decision on the matter.” So the first question I have is: why did the Clerk then allow the question that was repeated on Wednesday, and, secondly, why was the privilege letter not received by the Prime Minister’s office until after question time on Wednesday?

I will deal with the second point first. I cannot explain why the letter was not received by the Prime Minister’s office until after question time. That would be a matter for a discussion with the member who has lodged such a letter with me. The letter was received by me just prior to question time on the 17th—I think, from memory, at 12.47. I certainly did not have a chance to look at that letter prior to question time.

In reference to Speaker’s ruling 220/6, I think the other one that is also relevant is Speaker’s ruling 220/5. On the face of it—on the face of the reading of those two Speakers’ rulings—I think Mr Brownlee makes a very reasonable interpretation of those two rulings, but I have spent considerable time looking back as to the reason and the background for those two Speakers’ rulings. Speaker’s ruling 220/5 was a ruling that was made by Speaker Wall in 1986. On that occasion a member had lodged a breach of privilege with the Speaker, and then subsequently that member took the opportunity to attempt to debate it during his debate contribution in the House. Speaker Wall ruled that the mentioning of the breach of privilege was unacceptable, and told the member to desist.

The second Speaker’s ruling, Speaker’s ruling 220/6, is a ruling made in 2011 by Speaker Smith. On that occasion a breach of privilege had been raised by a Labour member of Parliament. Contemporaneously, a colleague of that Labour member of Parliament sought to also place a members’ notice of motion on the Order Paper. The Office of the Clerk refused to accept that notice of motion. Consequently, Speaker Smith was asked to intervene, and did so. Effectively, his ruling, Speaker’s ruling 220/6, ruled that a breach of privilege takes precedence over a members’ notice of motion.

I do conclude by saying that any subsequent airing of such matters that have been raised by a breach of privilege in the House through question time is unlikely to strengthen the final determination I make in finding that there has been a breach of privilege.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I thank you for your first, detailed ruling. On that second issue that has just been raised, I wanted to test with you the issue of members continuing to question a Minister on an issue that they have raised a privilege complaint with you about. The issue could well be that they feel the House has been misled, for example, and they have raised a breach of privilege complaint with you. They could continue to question the Minister on that topic without referring to the fact that they have made a breach of privilege complaint. The complaint would still be valid based on the facts at the time the complaint was made, even if Ministers then give other answers that subsequently contradict it. I just want to be sure that the lodging of a breach of privilege complaint would not then prevent a member continuing to question a Minister on the same topic.

That is exactly what I am saying. I am saying that those two Speakers’ rulings, once you look at them, would indicate that former Speakers have made a decision that a matter cannot be debated simply because a breach of privilege has been lodged. When I studied the background of them they were not an attempt to stop the matter being raised in further questions. Frankly, a member could lodge a breach of privilege and maybe not inform his own caucus colleagues or other members of an Opposition. How would anybody know that a breach of privilege has been lodged? So questions can continue to be asked, but I do remind members of my final comment. If they continue to ask questions, I think in some cases it tends to weaken the case for a breach of privilege ruling finally being made.