Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Prime Ministerial Responsibility

Before I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask question No. 1, I wish to make some comments as to the text and scope of the question, and answers that might arise from supplementary questions. There has been some debate as to whether this question is so broad as to encompass responsibilities beyond being Prime Minister, and therefore encompassing comments made as a leader of a party or a former member of Parliament for a particular electorate.

The authentication provided refers to some answers given in the House last week by the Prime Minister and on his behalf, and it is on that basis that I accepted the question. I did ask Mr Peters to amend his question to clarify that it ask only about all statements made as Prime Minister. He declined to do so. Rather than rule the question out of order, because I do not believe that it serves this House well to have only 11 questions, I am repeating some of the fundamental rules of questions to Ministers, as set out in Standing Order 378, that they can relate only to “(a) public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, or (b) proceedings in the House or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible.”

In doing so, I remind members of the advice I gave last week that they must be guided by Speakers’ rulings 172/2 and 172/3, and 173/1 and 173/2: the Prime Minister is not responsible to this House for a member of his caucus but is responsible for things he has said as Prime Minister. Answers to oral questions to Ministers in this House can be given only in a ministerial capacity.

While the primary question is therefore in order, I will listen carefully to supplementary questions from all members. Any question that I consider to be principally about caucus or party matters will be ruled out of order. Even when a supplementary question stands, if the Prime Minister does not consider that he has responsibility for the subject of the question, he may choose to reply to that effect. A reply that a Minister does not have responsibility for something is an answer in terms of the Standing Orders. The Speaker has no responsibility for the quality or content of an answer, provided it addresses the question asked.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first thing is—I do not want to contradict anything that you have said in your ruling, but in making your decisions about which supplementary questions to accept, I would ask that you also consider that the Prime Minister is responsible for the conduct of Ministers in that role. That includes the conduct of himself in his previous role as Minister of Finance. The second thing I would ask you to consider in that light is the comment that the Prime Minister made on TVNZ’s Q+A programme in the weekend—and we can supply a transcript if necessary—that he was dealing with the Barclay matter in his capacity as the Minister of Finance. That was the comment he made on television, and therefore he could not say that on television and then assert something different in the House.

I want to set the record straight because I have a full record of what occurred this morning with regard to you and your office. You will recall that you wanted me to add the words “in the House”. Knowing that I have 10,000 precedents—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just want to clarify that—“in the House” or “as Prime Minister”. The member was given either choice.

Mr Speaker, I have not finished my point of order, and I was getting to that. The first statement is erroneous, and I have got 10,000 precedents on that, and then the second one was where you refer to “as the Prime Minister”. We made it very clear from reading the Speakers’ rulings—in particular, 173/2 and 173/3, and, further, 173/4—that when it relates to a party matter, that is not a proscription in the way that you sought to interpret it. That said, I want to ask a question in the same way as countless Prime Ministers, including this one, have been asked, as to what they have said. The proscription that you sought to place on it we will not accept, and we will go further on the matter if you insist upon it.

I thought if the member had listened to my ruling he would have understood the process that has unfolded. I am allowing the question. I will then listen carefully to all supplementary questions, and that is not only in relation to this question; it is in relation to question No. 3. If I feel there is no prime ministerial responsibility—in other words, it is talking about a matter of caucus or a matter of party funding, for example—I will rule it out.

There has now been considerable debate in the media, over more than a week, so in some cases it will be difficult for me to know the context in which the Prime Minister may have made some statements. I then may choose to leave the question as in order, and leave it for the Prime Minister then to answer as he sees fit. He may well take the opportunity to say that he did not make such a statement in a prime ministerial capacity. That will be for the Prime Minister to determine.