Points of Order — Speakers’ Rulings—Written Questions, Content of Answers

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time today, you made a ruling regarding written question answers that my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford had put forward. I have had a chance now to look at those questions. I know that you have written to me about this matter as well.

I can certainly understand the concern that you have raised about some of the answers that my colleague has given, and I agree with you that some of the flippant comments that he has made in those do not reflect well on the House. However, the question that I would like to raise with you is around some of the ironic expressions that are made in some of the questions themselves and whether, in fact, one or two of those answers were appropriate given the context of the question. For example, in question No. 11652, the operable part of the question was, “how many more sleeps are required before a decision is made regarding KiwiBuild eligibility rules and income testing?”, to which the Minister replied, “it depends how frequently the member sleeps”. The point that I would make there is that the question itself did set itself up for that kind of answer. So—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: No, you will sit down.

I fully understand a more rigorous approach to the answers and I wouldn’t contest that at all. The question that I would ask of you, Mr Speaker, is that a rigorous approach is also taken to the accepting of the written questions themselves, because some of these questions do invite answers that would perhaps not reflect well on the House, because the questions themselves don’t reflect well on the House.

I can deal with that point of order very easily. If the Minister of Housing and Urban Development had not used the expression “not many more sleeps” in this House to the member when she asked the oral question, then I would not have allowed it in the written question. The original offence, the original irony, was quoted from the Hon Phil Twyford, and from my perspective, that is an acceptable use within a written question. If the Minister had not used the expression, he wouldn’t have been subject to what looks like an ironic question but, actually, is just a straight response to what was almost certainly an inappropriate comment that he made in the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you, therefore, ruling that the phrase “so many sleeps” is out of order—because that is an answer that has been given for many, many, many questions in the House.

No, no, I’m not doing that. But what I am indicating is that when that is quoted or used in a written question which relates to the answer given in the House, I’m not going to rule it out, whereas if it didn’t have a context, then at that stage it could well be considered ironic.