Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377(1), and it pertains to answers given by the Prime Minister to questions asked by me earlier this week. I seek your ruling, and I imagine that you would wish to give a considered ruling.
Standing Order 377(1) states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” The Standing Order therefore has two parts. The first obliges the Minister to seek to address the question—and this part is already the subject of many Speakers’ rulings. The second part relieves the Minister of any such obligation if the Minister judges that addressing the question would not be consistent with the public interest. This too, is the subject of many Speakers’ rulings, and it is clear that the decision to invoke it rests with the Minister alone. What is not clear to me is whether the Minister is, or is not, bound to explain why he or she has invoked the public interest part of the Standing Order. Ordinarily, it would be perfectly obvious and therefore uncontroversial. It may involve, to quote Speaker’s ruling 162/4, “principles [such] as privacy, commercial sensitivity, or national security.”
Earlier this week the Prime Minister repeatedly declined to address questions. He confirmed that that was because it was not in the public interest to do so. He further declined to say why it was not in the public interest. The Prime Minister then took matters a step further. He declined to tell the House whether he was in possession of any substantive information that is not yet public. He may be in possession of that substantive additional information, or he may not. He declined to say.
Therefore, a possible disorderly situation arises. If the Prime Minister does have substantive information disclosure of which is not in the public interest, I submit that he should be obliged to say that he has that information and to broadly characterise it—it affects the privacy of an individual, is commercially sensitive, involves national security, or whatever. If, on the other hand, the Prime Minister has no such information, then it follows, with unfortunate certainty, that he has invoked the second part of the Standing Order dishonestly, which is, of course, disorderly. One cannot withhold information in the public interest if it does not exist in the first place.
My submission is, therefore, that invoking the second part of the Standing Order obliges the Prime Minister to broadly say why. Failure to do so, where it is not already obvious, would allow a Minister to escape his or her obligation under the first part of the Standing Order by casually invoking the second.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Although the member has tried to read a lot of things into the Standing Order and its usage, the convention in this House, consistent with the Standing Order, is quite clear—that is, the Minister answering the question is the arbiter of what is in the public interest. There is no obligation to explain or provide information in, say, the manner that the Official Information Act requires. I think any ruling would need to be consistent with that well-established precedent.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
Speaking very briefly, I disagree with my colleague opposite. As it applies in this particular case, it goes to whether the Prime Minister was, in fact, invoking the public interest reason. Mr Speaker, as I indicated to you yesterday, although I think that you assumed that he did, I do not think he did directly.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
Mr Speaker, can I just draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 162/3-4. Speakers’ ruling 162/3 states: “an answer can be absolutely refused if, in the opinion of the Minister interrogated, the public interest would be imperilled …”. It does not define the public interest, but if we look at Speaker’s ruling 162/4, we see that it makes it very clear. It states: “But, ultimately, the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make. It is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.” I think that deals with the point that the member has raised. The question of what constitutes the public interest is, obviously, one that, in this instance, the Prime Minister will have to defend in the public arena. But in terms of the Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders, I would submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is very clear what the position is.
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) Link to this
I shall speak very briefly. The member in referring to Speaker’s ruling 162/4, in his, no doubt, keenness to progress matters this afternoon, omitted the last sentence of the ruling, which states: “Nor is it a matter for the member asking the question to suggest that because that member considers the matter to be a matter of public interest, the question should be answered in a particular way.” Mr Speaker, I think that will assist you in your deliberation.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I would ask the Speaker to dwell on this issue and to give it the consideration that it deserves, rather than making an instant ruling, because my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson makes a very valid point—that is, there must be some limit, prescribed by you, Mr Speaker, in the conduct of the affairs of this House, that stops the rules of this House from being abused by people claiming a public interest when there is not one. When there is a line issue as to whether there is a public interest, it obviously behoves the Minister to make the call in accordance with the Standing Orders. When there is no information, which is one of the possibilities here, that cannot be cloaked behind a claim of public interest, and where there is something that is being protected for, plainly, a private, political interest rather than a public interest, clearly, that ought not to be defended by hiding behind that ruling, either. So I ask you, Mr Speaker, to give consideration to that.
Mr SPEAKERI thank honourable members for raising what is a very serious point of order; I accept that, absolutely. But I also make very clear that the Standing Order and the Speakers’ rulings that have been cited, quite correctly, are pretty clear on the matter: it is not for the Speaker to judge whether a matter is correctly or not correctly considered to be in the public interest. That is the sole prerogative of the Minister—in this case, the Prime Minister—answering the question. I believe that the Standing Orders make it very clear that that is the way it should be, and that it would be dangerous, in my view, for the Speaker to get into that territory. For that reason, I am going to rule that in fact the existing Standing Order and the existing Speakers’ rulings cover the situation adequately. The argument about whether information exists is not relevant, in my view, because an answer may not involve specific information. The issue as to whether an answer is given may not involve specific information but relate to wider matters to do with the public interest. I think we cannot move away from the fundamental position that the decision as to whether a matter is in the public interest must remain with the Minister.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take the stand again, but the truth of the matter is that I agree with your ruling, and I was not asking for you to change that, at all. I would be grateful if you could take a look at my point of order—I have provided the Clerk of the House with a copy—and give a considered ruling. My point of order is not at all to do with whether some person other than the Minister gets to make a judgment on whether something is in the public interest. It is not that point, at all; it is two other points. I would be grateful, Mr Speaker, if you could indicate to the House your preparedness to take a further look at what you are now looking at, and perhaps to give a ruling on it sometime in the future.
Obviously, I will look at the honourable member’s letter, and I will look at the matter to see whether there is any issue I have overlooked. But I repeat what I said a moment ago: one of the key issues the member has specified in this letter is the issue about the existence of information, or not. To me, answering a question relates to more than just specific information. Some questions might cover specific information; others might not. But the issue of public interest is wider than just the matter of whether substantive information exists or does not exist. So I alert the member to that, but I do undertake to examine his letter carefully, because I think the issue deserves proper scrutiny by the Speaker. I will come back on the matter only if I find any reason to differ from what I have ruled today.