GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this matter now because it relates to question time specifically, and I point to Standing Order 378 in doing so. We were notified yesterday that due to the decision by Taito Phillip Field to become an Independent member, there would be some reallocation of supplementary questions. Over the last short while it has become somewhat of a formula to decide who gets supplementary questions, how many, and why that is the case. It would appear that the Labour Party, having lost a member, in fact drops one supplementary question, but the National Party is required to drop two supplementary questions. That seems to be fundamentally unfair. [ Interruption] Labour Ministers will, of course, laugh, because that means there will be 60 fewer occasions during a parliamentary year when they will have to avoid answering questions, which they are all now so adept at doing. My request, Madam Speaker, is that you have a look at this matter, recognise the authority you have under Standing Order 378, and give consideration to allowing the National Party to retain the number of supplementary questions we were allocated prior to the decision by the Labour Party to send Mr Field down the road.
Madam SPEAKERI thank the member, and he does raise a point that I know will be of interest to other members. In anticipation I do have a ruling to clarify matters for the benefit of members. If there is any further debate, I suggest that people look at the ruling and perhaps raise it at the Business Committee.
Following the Business Committee’s confirmation of a revised roster for the allocation of questions for oral answer, I have reconsidered the allocation of supplementary questions. Supplementary questions are, of course, allowed at the Speaker’s discretion. However, over recent times Speakers have given an indication of the way that they may allocate supplementary questions. A revised allocation has been sent to all party whips and comes into force today. The Speaker’s indicative allocation of supplementary questions is based on the same system of proportionality that is used for the allocation of primary questions for oral answer. The allocations to parties are calculated as a proportion of the total number of members—121—excluding the 28 members of the executive. Each week 189 supplementary questions may be allowed; that is 63 each question time. Each party has been allocated its proportion of the 189 supplementary questions, and those have been allocated across the three question times. The new allocation takes into account a member becoming an Independent member and the resignation of the Hon Jim Sutton, who was not replaced as a Minister, thus reducing the numbers in the executive by one.
The impact on the Labour Party’s proportion of the reduction in the number of members of the executive on the one hand, and of a member becoming an Independent on the other hand, in effect cancel each other out. As a result all parties’ allocations are reduced relatively. The Labour Party is entitled to 20 percent of the supplementary questions and loses one question; the National Party is entitled to 50 percent of the supplementary questions and loses two questions. The changes in the proportions for the smaller parties are so small that they have no material impact on their allocations. The Independent member is entitled to two supplementary questions each week. Previously there were 190 supplementary questions each week. Now, to ensure strict proportionality, there will be 189.
I must also say that when I went back and reconsidered this matter, I found we had not taken into account the fact that the Hon Jim Sutton had resigned from the executive, so in effect the National Opposition has had one question more than it was entitled to, and the Labour Party one less. [Interruption] I apologise to members for that, and as the changes take place we will make the proportions change at that time. But that is why, as Gerry Brownlee has raised quite properly, the revised allocation may seem a little incongruous.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. By the interesting logic you put in front of us, can we assume that if the Labour Party were to further decimate its extraordinarily large executive, it might in fact not have to answer very many questions in the House, at all?
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a separate point of order that arises out of the last one. It may be useful, in the context of determining the allocation, for you to offer a rationale to the House for the exclusion of members of the executive from the calculation, given that members of the executive frequently ask supplementary questions.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
That was a conscious decision of the Standing Orders Committee at the time. Indeed, I think I was the person who initially suggested that, on the grounds that essentially, of course, it is members of the executive who answer questions within the House. That does not prevent, within the Labour Party, members of the executive asking supplementary questions, but it seemed to be fair and appropriate that the allocation of questions should be based on non-executive membership. In the National Party, of course, that means there is a very powerful incentive to remain in Opposition, because in that way those members get more questions.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
I think that Mr Dunne raises an interesting point, but we cannot support him because, clearly, the only way that members of this Government communicate with one another is through the question and answer process.