11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister for ACC
Did he tell reporters: “my appearance arose because the chairman phoned me, the chairman of the committee said that having been advised that Mr Judge was unavailable, would I be available for answering questions about the changes I was making on the board”; if so, does he stand by that comment?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) Link to this
Yes; the indisputable facts are these. First, Mr Judge was genuinely unavailable, and asked me to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Second, I discussed my attendance with the select committee chair, David Bennett, and Mr Bennett agreed. Third, the first thing I said to the committee when I attended was that Mr Judge would appear at the earliest convenient opportunity, and this he has done. I think arguments over whether I phoned Mr Bennett or Mr Bennett phoned me, or whether I was attending the select committee on Mr Judge’s behalf or apologising on his behalf, are simply diversions from the real issue of the mess that the previous Government left the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
In light of the Minister’s answer to the substantive question, why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The record is quite plain. I spoke with Mr Judge after a Cabinet meeting, advising him of his appointment as the new chair of the ACC board. He advised me that he would be unavailable on the Thursday when the select committee sought the attendance of the chair. Mr Judge asked me to attend. I subsequently had a discussion with the select committee chair. He believed and agreed that that was a good thing to do, given that I was in the process of reconfiguring the ACC board.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a very simple question. It was: “why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. It had nothing to do with the general background. We have only one supplementary question left for the day, so the option of asking the supplementary question again, as you often invite people to do, is not one that is useful. I ask you to ask the Minister to address the question.
Mr SPEAKERWell, the member has pointed out that he does have a further supplementary question available to him to delve further into this issue. I cannot insist on the Minister answering in a particular way. The Minister seemed to give an explanation as to exactly what went on. In that, it appeared to answer the question. If that is not the case, the member does have a further supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear at the committee?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The record is quite clear. On the Monday, I advised Mr Judge, with Cabinet’s support—
Hon Clayton CosgroveHon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will now do something that is really unusual. I will ask my colleagues to let the Minister hang himself and to not interject.
The point of order is a good one. If members do not want the Minister to deviate in answering the question, they should not interject.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
My statements have been absolutely consistent in the fact that when I informed Mr Judge of his appointment as the ACC chair, he informed me that he would be unavailable for the select committee meeting later in the week. He invited me to attend and to apologise on his behalf. That is exactly what occurred. The very first statement I made to the select committee when I attended was that Mr Judge would make himself available at the earliest convenient opportunity. He did that. I cannot believe that the Opposition believes that a simple 2-week delay in being able to meet the new chair of ACC over a financial review for the previous financial year is some big deal.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I raised when I had one supplementary question left. It is that this was a very simple question: “why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. The New Zealand Press Association was not referred to in the answer, and no reason was given for the Minister giving an answer to the New Zealand Press Association that was inconsistent to that he has just given to the House.
John HayesI need to deal with this point of order that has been raised. It is a very difficult one. I accept the point the member is making, which is that he is asking a very specific question. If we look at the primary question, which has to be verified, what he is now building into this supplementary question is what the Minister might have told the New Zealand Press Association. The dilemma I have in trying to extract a more precise answer from the Minister is that that question has not had to go through the verification process that the primary question did. That is something of a difficulty for me, because the Minister has explained what he did, in answer to the member’s question. Obviously, there is the chance to pursue this matter further in the future, but it is difficult for me. I have to accept an unverified—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is absolutely right. You do have to accept something that is unverified when a member quotes it. It is open to the Minister to deny saying he said that to the New Zealand Press Association. As a number of us have done in the past when inaccurate quotes have been given to us, he has chosen not to deny saying that to the New Zealand Press Association, notwithstanding that he has had two opportunities to do it. It is very clear that he did—he was quoted as doing that, and the supplementary question related to why he told the New Zealand Press Association that. He has been given two opportunities to deny the quote and he has not.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Last week we covered the issue of the questioner trying to frame the context in which an answer must be given, and then expecting the Chair to back him or her. The other day I gave the example of the “yes” or “no” answer that is in Speaker’s ruling 157/8. There is also Speaker’s ruling 162/6, and Speakers’ rulings 163/6 and 163/2, and so on; throughout Speakers’ Rulings there are these requirements. Mr Speaker, you are being constantly asked to put yourself in a position that previous Speakers have roundly rejected. In that regard, although I do not want to read it out, I commend Speaker’s ruling 163/5, where Speaker Hunt makes it extremely clear that the position Mr Mallard wants to put you in is an unacceptable one. For the order of the House, you have made some explanations to Mr Mallard, but I do not think they are necessary. I think they are giving greater credence to the capacity of a questioner to frame a question that then must be answered according to the parameters set in that question.
Dr Nick Smith gave an explanation. That surely stands as an answer that satisfies any one of the complaints that might have arisen before recourse to any of the rules in Speakers’ Rulings that essentially mean a Minister can answer in a way that he or she deems fit.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I have been listening very carefully to your rulings since you became Speaker, and I have taken your advice to ask tight primary questions and tight supplementary questions. This supplementary question was very tight. It asked “why?” in relation to a particular quote. Neither the quote nor the “why?” was addressed. So it is my submission that you are not being asked to judge the quality of the answer; you are being asked whether the supplementary question was addressed. It is my submission that it was not.
It is a difficult issue and I accept that I have put myself in a position that is rather more difficult than some recent Speakers have. But I have done that intentionally, because I believe that this Parliament and the issue of accountability are too important to allow the practice of evasion of questions that developed during the previous term of this Parliament to continue.
In the interest of fairness—because I cannot judge the quality of an answer—I will allow the honourable member to repeat his question, although his allocation of supplementary questions has expired. We will accept that the quality of the answer will be judged by members of the public, and we will not intervene further on the matter. I am giving the member a chance to repeat his question. I will allow the Minister to answer it, and the quality of that answer will be judged by others, not us.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On what basis are you doing that? That was surely—
The member will resume his seat. I can tell him exactly on what basis I am doing that. I suggest that he looks at Standing Order 377. The very first requirement of that Standing Order is that a question shall be answered. It does not say that a Minister will respond to a question. The actual Standing Order, in respect of contents of replies, states: “(1) An answer”—it does not say “a response”, it says “an answer”, and in the English language it is pretty clear what “answer” means. That is the basis of my ruling. I have invited the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a further supplementary question but we will not continue the debate beyond that. The answer given will be judged by others, not us.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. All of the Standing Orders are given life by Speakers’ rulings that accumulate over a period of years. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 166/6. I think it would be impossible for anyone to suggest that Dr Smith has not made every attempt to answer the question. There is another ruling that deals with the issue of the problem in the word “answer”. Someone has to reach some sort of definition or conclusion about what an answer is. That is why Speakers are protected by the accumulation of rulings. Are we now going to toss all of those out and start again?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
It does seem to me—and I have some sympathy for the position taken by the Leader of the House—that the interpretation of Standing Order 377 has to be governed by the first few words of Standing Order 377(1), which are: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked …”. That effectively has two qualifiers within it before it gets any further—first of all, “seeking” and, secondly, “addressing” the question asked—if, of course, it can be given consistently with the public interest. It is always for a Minister to decide whether it is consistent with the public interest to give an answer. The response to that, of course, is simply not to give an answer, or to indicate that an answer will not be given because is not consistent with the public interest. Once a Minister has launched into an answer, the answer should seek to address the question asked. It is all very well, on quite narrow factual matters, to try to get Ministers to address a factual question—“When did the Minister do such and such?”; “How many such and such?”, “What such and such?”—but most questions are not phrased in that framework. When they go beyond that framework, then the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have not required Ministers to have a very narrow interpretation of what they are able to do.
Indeed, Mr Speaker, I invite you perhaps on occasion to look at the Australian Parliament if one wants to see a very bad question time in operation. A person asks a question, there are no supplementary questions, and the Minister has, in effect, unlimited time to give a speech in response to that question. Answers are often 3 minutes or more in length. Question time is something of a farce. It is a series of ministerial speeches in response to questions, half of which are patsy questions, anyway, from members of the Government.
Our question time is much more robust on Ministers in that regard. I think we have to be careful, in going so far as to try to bring Ministers up to the mark, in starting to insist on a particular type of answer in a way that allows a much less free interchange between members on both sides of the House. Our question time, in my view, is already by far the most robust of any Westminster-style Parliament in the world. I think one should not be going too far in changing the thrust of past Speakers’ rulings in that regard.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, I think the difficulty for a Minister is that when a member, without notice, quotes a particular statement and asks why that contradicts another statement, I have no opportunity to check it. What I chose to answer to the House was specifically what occurred around the question: “What was the communication I had with the new chair of ACC about attendance at the committee?”. I gave a very clear and straight answer about that important issue relating to my ministerial responsibilities.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is actually helpful, I think. It will be very short and very helpful.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I know we should not be coaching the Government from the Opposition benches. The proper response in that case is to say “I don’t recall making that statement.”
I thank honourable members for their contributions. There has been tremendous public support for the attempts to make question time a time when Ministers are held more to account in this House. The impressive point is that answers have improved enormously. The point the Hon Dr Michael Cullen made is a good one—that it works best where questions are seeking factual information on notice. The point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made is also a good one—that where supplementary questions contain material that is not verified, it is very difficult for a Minister to be able to answer exactly, because he or she has no opportunity to check the validity of the quote.
I think it has been a useful discussion. Let me make it very clear that I do not intend to back off from my interpretation of Standing Order 377. It has had widespread support. In fact, I think Ministers look rather better when they answer questions, rather than evading them. The House is improved by that. But members do need to be reasonable when seeking my intervention in answers to questions.
We got to the stage where I had agreed to allow the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a further supplementary question, which promoted a point of order. My dilemma now is, having allowed the member to ask a further supplementary question, I think we should allow it. However, I take on board the points made by honourable members. I do not seek to make question time impossible at all. The quality of answers has improved hugely compared with the last parliamentary term, and I do not want that improvement to be lost.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is important. You have decided to allow the member to ask his question again, after he protested about not getting a satisfactory answer. We would contend that by every standard you have set, either for this Parliament or previously, when an answer is given, it does tend to mean that you will interpret Speakers’ rulings 165/5 and 165/6 in quite a different manner. I would be very interested if you could come back to us at a future time to tell us how those matters that are raised in those two Speakers’ rulings—the matters of the neutral word “answer” and then of course the subjective term “address”—will be considered in the future.
I hear the member and I am very happy to rule on it right now. Yes, he is correct. I am not continuing with Speaker’s ruling 165/5, because I happen to disagree totally. The word “answer” is not a neutral word. I have studied the academic writings of the previous Speaker in some detail where this matter has been discussed. I have read the papers carefully. I have read the Standing Orders very carefully. I have a different view. In fact, that Speaker’s ruling is not one that will guide my decision making. I have made it very clear, in response to this further question, that we will not be judging the quality of this answer. I have made that very clear to the member. I invite the question to be asked and the Minister to answer.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a substantial shift in the way in which the House deals with things. I ask myself whether it means that you will refer to Speaker’s ruling 163/5 as a guide to how you will run question time in this House.
It may be best that you do not respond now. It would useful if we could have some notification of that in some other way.
I say to the honourable member that these matters are not difficult. The Speaker does not, as Speaker’s ruling 163/5 points out, judge whether an answer is correct. What is often so plain to all, including the public watching and listening, is when a very simple and clear question is evaded. If accountability is to be as those who wrote that original Standing Order intended, then questions should be answered with rather more clarity than has become the practice in recent years. That does not mean, though, that the Speaker will judge the quality of an answer, or whether it is correct. That is why we had the trouble with Dr Cullen’s point of order earlier on. I cannot judge whether an answer is correct, but it is patently clear, at times, where questions are evaded.
I have made it clear that there will be no further debate on the answer to this question. I have invited the member to ask a further supplementary question. I cannot now go back and take that off him. I invite the Minister to answer it, and there will be no further debate on that answer.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps if I could helpfully, I hope, draw to your attention that the Speakers’ rulings in the current Speakers’ Rulings book are, of course, quite recent ones, but they repeat in essence Speakers’ rulings that go back many, many decades. In other words, while you are appearing to argue that this is a relatively recent matter, in fact the issue of the nature of Ministers’ replies to questions is one that has been argued in this House for many, many decades, long before anyone in this Chamber was anywhere near it. So I think it would be somewhat unhelpful if you were to assume this was some kind of recent occurrence, and recent rulings are responding to those occurrences. They are not. They are deeply embedded within the tradition of our Parliament.
I think, therefore, you might want to contemplate over the coming adjournment just how far this new interpretation goes. I think it will cause continued difficulty during question time.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear at the meeting?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
I cannot recall the exact words I used to the New Zealand Press Association, but my very clear recollection is that when Mr Judge, the new chair of the ACC board, was unavailable to attend the select committee, he asked me to attend.