RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I consider it to be a serious point of order. I refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 154/1, which is a recent ruling from Speaker Hunt: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold. Question time is an important element of this accountability. Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” That is the entire ruling. I want to concentrate on the fact that Ministers should endeavour to give “informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” The Speaker’s ruling, of course, covers written questions, and that is where my difficulty lies with the Government.
I put a question to the Prime Minister that asked her the details of any road accidents that she had been involved in with her motorcade. I received her answer and the total answer is this: “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.”
Hon Annette King
Madam SPEAKERI agree, I say to the member that he is entitled to put forward his point of order, but also that the Standing Orders ask that points of order be put concisely and tersely. So I ask the member to do that, please. I ask other members to please be quiet while he is doing so.
The written reply by the Prime Minister stated: “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.” That was the total reply, but my question asked what the details were. In actual fact, what transpired was that the car the Prime Minister was in was hit by her police escort from behind—it was not just any old car that hit her. She failed to report that in her answer to the question. The second thing is that she failed to mention a detail that is quite important, which is that her car was catapulted, as a result of the rear end impact, into another car. It was a three car pile-up that was caused by her own motorcade.
My issue is that when I go to Speaker’s ruling 154/1 there is no way that it can be construed that the Prime Minister has endeavoured to give an informative reply to the question that was asked. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to help this House to uphold that Speaker’s ruling.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
That was about as gross a misuse of the Standing Order procedure as I have seen in many a long time. First of all, the supposed facts mentioned by the member are debatable but, more important, the member has question of the day No. 7, which raises precisely this matter. Then to pretend, with an innocent look on his face, while glancing by sheer chance at the TV cameras the entire time, that he is raising a serious point of order around the original written answer is to beggar belief, in terms of the members of this House.
No, I am sorry. The member had a considerable amount of time in which to make his point of order. There has been a response to it. I would refer the member, though, to Speaker’s ruling 159/5(2). If a member is dissatisfied with a written reply then that member should raise that initially with the Minister’s office. Once that has happened, then the Speaker will intervene, but not until it has been raised.
GERRY BROWNLEEIt is, but it is along the same lines, and it is something we were going to bring up with you at some point, Madam Speaker. It is appropriate to do so now. National has been concerned for a time about the way in which some written questions are answered, and I can think of one Minister, whom I will not name, who has actually just written back and said: “It would take too long to answer this, so we’re not going to.” I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you might reflect on how many times you, in your relatively short time as Speaker, have dealt with issues in the House in relation to questions for written answer. It seems to me that it would be quite frequently. Perhaps, therefore, there is a need to remind Government Ministers of their obligations in that regard.
I remind the member that, as I ruled before, if members have raised the matter first with the Minister’s office, and second with the Speaker, then the Speaker will deal with it.
Sure. It is actually to you, Madam Speaker, that we look to uphold the rules of this Parliament. Before I raise my new point of order, I will respond to Dr Cullen’s point. The fact that I have an oral question down to the Prime Minister in no way addresses the issue for this House that I was raising with you, Madam Speaker, which is about the Standing Orders. My point of order was entirely in order. I pointed to the Speaker’s ruling, and I raised it.
I want now to raise with you an issue under Standing Order 373/4. It beggars belief how many times I have raised issues with Ministers, with the Prime Minister, and, indeed, with the Speaker. But the requirement in that Standing Order is that replies be given in 6 working days. The question I put to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister, for goodness’ sake—was on the first day back in this House, on 14 February. The reply to that question was due on 22 February. I received the answer on 21 March—fully 4 weeks late. I ask you, Madam Speaker, through your office, to send a message to the Prime Minister and other Ministers that Standing Orders do apply to them, and that answering questions informatively is important but, more particularly, so is complying with the Standing Orders. How can it be that the Prime Minister takes 5 weeks to answer a question that should be answered in 6 days?