Points of Order — Oral Questions—Amended Answers

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. When Ministers give incorrect information in answers to oral questions, there is an onus on them to come back to the House and do what David Seymour has just done and stating that they gave incorrect information, but there is also an onus on them to provide the correct information.

David Seymour has just made it clear to the House that he provided incorrect information, but he hasn’t done the second part of that, which is to discharge his responsibility for correcting incorrect information, and it is to provide what the correct information actually is. He has indicated that the Fire Service were disrupted more than once by having faulty equipment in responding to calls, but he hasn’t told us how many times.

Thank you. Does the Minister have the answer on hand? If not, the possibility is either now or at the earliest opportunity.

Well, I’m sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion is incorrect. You do have an obligation to address questions, which I did at the time, and to correct any incorrect information, which I have. There’s no further obligation.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. David Seymour sought leave to correct an answer, and, on that basis, the House unanimously gave him leave to do so. He didn’t seek leave to withdraw information; he sought leave to correct information. He has not done that.

The advice I have is that if the Minister knows the answer, he should give it to the House, and if he doesn’t, he should give it to the House as soon as possible.

Well, with the greatest of respect, the problem is that there may not always be an answer. Therefore, you can’t always be—that’s why you’re required to address the question; not answer it.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister does not know the answer, then how would he have corrected the answer? He must know the answer; therefore, he is obliged to tell the House what the answer is, given that the previous answer he gave was incorrect.

I just really hope that this is not how Labour Party logic works every day, because the simple fact is that while the statement made has been advised—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet—the Minister is speaking.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to be incorrect, that does not mean that a correct answer is available. It may be that the answer given was simply erroneous. That’s why it has being withdrawn, and with the incorrect part removed, the answer is now correct.

The Minister is saying that he doesn’t have an answer available—

Hon David Seymour: You guys are simple.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —so, yeah.

Hon David Seymour: Simple, simple.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. That isn’t what he’s saying; he appears to be saying he’s not willing to give it. If he—

No, that’s not what I heard. I heard him say—

Hon David Seymour: Simple man.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —there wasn’t an answer available. That is what he just said to the House.

A further point of order, Madam Speaker. If it, therefore, becomes clear that David Seymour has been advised what the number is and he has chosen not to give that information to the House, will he still be in breach of the House, as he would have been had he not corrected it?

Speaking to the point of order, maybe I can help the member out. I’ve been advised that a number is not currently available, so therefore it’s not possible to answer the question—which is what I’ve been trying to get through to the simple man over there this whole time.

Yeah, that’s fine. There’s currently—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A further point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m accepting that there’s not currently an answer available that the Minister has at this point in time—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yep, I’m accepting that, too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s what he said.

Madam Speaker, you’ll note that this is a serious matter, where a Minister has to seek leave to correct an answer in order to not breach the privileges of the House. I have raised the issue with you correctly and appropriately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t insulted the Minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Multiple times in his answers to that, he chose to insult me and attack me in breach of the rules of the House. What would the consequence of that be for him?

Look, I will follow up and have a look at the Hansard because I didn’t pick up an insult. I know there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing coming from the Minister, but I didn’t pick up the insult, and so I will look at the Hansard and I will come back to you.