Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also wish to raise an important point of order about your requirements of Ministers around the answering of questions.
Yesterday you gave an additional supplementary question to Mr Mallard on the basis that I had not answered his question “Why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. Mr Mallard repeated that question five times in supplementary questions and points of order, demanding an answer, and that was backed up by you. But the actual New Zealand Press Association quote from me was “I never said I was acting for him.”
My substantive point is that I think that, as Speaker, you need to be quite cautious in insisting that Ministers must answer unauthenticated questions, as Ministers have not had the opportunity to check whether they are correct. Nor is it fair for you to require Ministers to instantly be able to determine whether such a quote is correct, because I do not think there would be a member in the House who could instantly recall every comment that had been publicly reported. I did address the question in answering the substantive matter of what I and Mr Judge had discussed. Given the ground that you are pushing on this matter of Ministers answering questions, I think it would be helpful if, over the adjournment, you gave a considered ruling in respect of this issue of unauthenticated supplementary questions.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) Link to this
The Minister raises an important point and one that is worthy of consideration. It seems to me that the answer lies in Ministers’ hands in that particular kind of example, because it is an important example of an unauthenticated supplementary question. But if the Minister is unsure whether the question is based upon what the Minister actually said—and we all have some sympathy with the notion that one does not remember everything one has said, and one can never be sure it has been reported correctly, in the second instance, in any case—then the Minister is open to giving an answer that is simply along the lines of: “I’m not sure I agree with the member that that is what I said. I would prefer to check the quotation before giving the answer.” That directly answers the question, without getting the Minister into trouble about whether that is, in fact, an accurate quotation.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I think that is exactly the problem that we got into yesterday. The Hon Nick Smith gave an answer. He gave, effectively, the only answer he could at the time, knowing that the quote mentioned in the supplementary question was not quite right. Not having instant recall of the exact quote, he gave an answer. It was subsequently ruled to be inadequate, and an additional supplementary question was given. I think that is the problem we got into yesterday. It is quite correct for Dr Cullen to suggest that the matter is in the Minister’s hands, but all that is in the Minister’s hands is the ability to give an answer.
I accept your ruling that the idea that the word “answer” is neutral, as is suggested in Speakers’ Rulings, is no longer going to stand, but, by the same token, if a Minister does address a question, does give an answer that is related to the question, then it surely satisfies the test that Dr Cullen puts on it. I am sure that some consideration of this matter over the coming days would be beneficial. As you are going through the exercise of requiring Parliament to be more accountable, this matter is something you might like to consider as well.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I want to raise briefly two points. The first I think was touched on by Dr Cullen. Following advice from, I think, you and me, the Minister actually got it right in the end and answered in a way that was appropriate. The second point that I would make is to make it absolutely clear that I was quoting directly from the report of the New Zealand Press Association. I did not ever indicate that it was a quote from Dr Smith. I quoted directly from the report.
Mr SPEAKERHonourable members, thank you. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a perfectly fair point of order. In fact, yesterday, members will recollect that I was troubled by that very issue of validation of alleged quotes in supplementary questions where there is no opportunity to validate them. However, at the same time—and I am very happy to give it further thought—it is certainly a worthwhile point. The point Dr Cullen makes is also a very valid point—that is, the Minister does have the last say. The Minister can easily say—and it is a perfectly proper answer—“I cannot recollect saying those words; they may not be correct.” That is a perfectly valid answer.
The dilemma I get into is when the quote is totally ignored in the answer. Having said that, I am very happy to give the issue further reflection, because my interest in Ministers being held to account properly in this House does not hinge on that particular issue, and I do not want it to become a major problem. But I do take into account all the points raised by members. I think they are all useful points.