12. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
to the Minister of Corrections
Does she agree that information released under the Official Information Act by the Department of Corrections indicates that not one of the 423 prisoners serving life sentences would have been stopped by the proposed “three strikes” law?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) Link to this
If, when the member says “the proposed ‘three strikes’ law” he actually means the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, then the answer is yes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Does she agree with her support party colleague David Garrett, who said in the first reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that the victims of 77 murderers in jail “would be alive today if, at the time they were killed, this bill had been enforced. That is not arguable; it is simply arithmetic.”, a myth that he is continuing to mislead the public with even after he received the same advice from her department that proves it is not true?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS Link to this
The bill is currently before the Law and Order Committee. I am sure that the committee, of which the member is deputy chair, will be able to take into account all those sorts of comments, and it may well bring about changes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked whether the Minister agreed with her support party colleague. Her answer in no way addressed the question. The question was “Does she agree with her support party colleague …” etc.; the Minister did not address that question.
Mr SPEAKERIt is difficult, when members ask for opinions, to get an exact answer, but I invite the Minister bring her answer a little closer to the question asked.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS Link to this
The bill is at the select committee. Who knows what will be in it when it comes out? I think the member should have a more open mind towards the bill, and what might be in it when it comes out of the committee, than he is showing now.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I reiterate my point of order: where in that answer did the Minister come anywhere close to answering the question as to whether she agrees with her colleague? She ignored your ruling completely.
It is difficult for me to back the honourable member totally, because questions that ask whether Ministers agree are always difficult questions. It is not as if factual information is being sought; an opinion is being sought. The Minister is not going to express an opinion, if it is difficult for her, as Minister, to comment on this matter until the legislation is back from the select committee. It is difficult for me to say that the Minister is not answering the question, because where opinions are sought, the member will get that kind of answer in response. I am afraid I cannot assist the member further on that.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [ Interruption] Are we having points of order in silence?
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Thank you. Without taking issue with your ruling, Mr Speaker, you made comments to the effect that the question required a complex answer, and that the bill was before a select committee, and the Minister could give an answer after that—or words to that effect. It is not complex, I would have thought, to answer a question whether a Minister agrees, or does not agree, with some proposition. It is very simple; it is probably one of the most simple questions asked in this House. To mince around the edges by talking about a select committee process, or what my view may be, or what others’ views may be, does not answer the simple question of whether the Minister agrees with a statement that has been made in this House, on the first reading of a bill, by a coalition support party member, Mr Garrett.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 157/8, which basically states that a member cannot ask for a yes or no answer, nor expect such an answer. That is exactly what Mr Cosgrove is expecting. If he is not, then he has had an answer, because the Minister expressed an opinion about the question.
No, I do not need to hear further points on this. The member Gerry Brownlee is absolutely correct. That is the correct Speaker’s ruling. Many Speakers’ rulings point out that a member cannot, in that kind of question, ask for a yes or no answer. Where I will back members absolutely in seeking information is when they put down a primary question that seeks information; I will endeavour to make sure this House is provided with that information. But where an opinion is sought, especially where a Minister is asked whether he or she agrees with someone else, ultimately, the Minister does not have any responsibility for what another honourable member may say. The Hon Judith Collins has expressed her opinion very clearly in saying that she cannot agree one way or the other until she knows what the legislation will actually do. I do not believe we can take that matter any further, and I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without challenging your ruling, I would like to make it clear that I did not, in that question, ask for a yes or no answer. I simply asked—as I put it to you—whether the Minister agrees with her colleague. Mr Speaker, I assume you are setting a new precedent in the House that Ministers can go wide of the mark, whether answering a primary or a supplementary question, and avoid simply answering the question of whether they agree with a proposition. But that is your ruling, and I will respect it.
Does the Minister have a responsibility to ensure the public is correctly informed about legislation that is being promoted by her Government? Given that she had information from her department that Mr Garrett’s claims about the “three strikes” provisions within the legislation are incorrect, why did she choose to stand by and say nothing, and allow the New Zealand public to continue to be misled, instead of, as she should have done as Minister, setting the record straight?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS Link to this
If the member had only done his homework, then he would know that I am not the Minister in charge of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and that the Hon Simon Power is. If he would like to put down a question for that Minister, then I think he should do so.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Official Information Act request—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I have a copy of the Official Information Act request. It was sent to the Department of Corrections and the information was released by the Department of Corrections. The Minister, as I understand it, has ministerial responsibility as the Minister of Corrections for the Department of Corrections, and I asked her a question in respect of that Official Information Act request. She has a duty, I would have thought, to set the record straight and, I presume, to stand by the information released by her own department. I was asking about the Official Information Act request.
The issue is a difficult one, because where a Minister says he or she does not have responsibility for a specific issue, I have to accept that. I cannot adjudicate on that matter as Speaker; I cannot say that that Minister has responsibility. The member’s primary question was indeed focused exactly on information from the Department of Corrections, but his final supplementary question became quite a complex question. I believe that it would be unreasonable to expect the Speaker to adjudicate—and, in fact, the Speaker cannot—when a Minister says he or she is not responsible for the particular matter raised in a question.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your ruling. You may wish to take some time to consider this point, and I will accept that if you do. Are you telling this House that a Minister does not have responsibility for information from, in this case, her department that has been released under the Official Information Act, and that she can therefore avoid making a comment on that information?
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the Minister has said she is not responsible for the particular matters covered in that question, and, as Speaker, I cannot adjudicate on that. Speakers cannot adjudicate on that matter; that is the simple fact of the matter.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Does the Minister now accept that because of the information released under the Official Information Act from her department, the legislation before the House—which, presumably, she supports as a Minister in the Government—is now a cruel hoax on the public, and especially on the victims of crime, as it would not have saved a single life according to her department’s advice, which I assume she stands by and is responsible for?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS Link to this
I keep saying to that member that he should wait until the bill comes back from the Law and Order Committee. He is a member of the select committee. Submissions will be made by members of the public. The bill is now before the select committee, and he is the deputy chair. He has the opportunity to hear the submissions. I really think that until the bill comes back to the House, the issue is a bit hypothetical, frankly.
David GarrettCan she confirm that the difference, in effect, between ACT’s “three strikes” bill and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is National’s addition of a requirement that an offender must, in addition to having been convicted of a listed offence, have been sentenced to imprisonment for at least 5 years?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS Link to this
There is clearly a difference between the ACT policy and the bill as it was introduced. But after the select committee has finished with the bill, I am not sure what it will come back with, because that will be a matter for the select committee to determine.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just simply ask whether you will—and I presume that you will—give a considered ruling in respect of the Official Information Act request issue.
I do not believe there is a matter that I need to rule on. The honourable member has raised a point of order, and I have ruled on it. But I cannot adjudicate when Ministers say that they are not responsible for specific issues. It is for the public to judge whether the public thinks a Minister is evading his or her responsibilities, and it is for members of this House to judge that.
Dr Russel NormanI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to that point there is an issue here, because the Minister on the one hand said she had no responsibility for that bill and it was not her issue, and on the other hand, in response to Mr Garrett’s question, answered specifically about the bill. I ask how she can have it both ways. Either she says she does not have responsibility and hence does not answer Mr Garrett’s question, or she does have responsibility.
I would like members to keep silent while this interesting issue is being dealt with. The member is quite correct in what he says. It would have been interesting if other members had latched on to the Minister’s answer and pursued it further, because then members could have made it very clear that they were asking how she could answer a question that appeared to be in the area where she had previously said she had no responsibility. That is the kind of thing that I hope members will do in the future if they find that a Minister seems to be inconsistent in what he or she claims responsibility for, once the Minister has given an answer on a matter that he or she has previously claimed to have no responsibility for. I would have thought that it is then in the realm where members could pursue the material that the Minister had provided in that answer.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, the Opposition is given only a certain number of supplementary questions every day, so if Ministers stonewall, the Opposition becomes unable to take matters further. But picking up the point that you have raised, I ask whether you would be prepared to give the Hon Clayton Cosgrove a supplementary question, so that he can pursue the exact point that you have just told the House about. You have just advised us—[ Interruption]
We are still on a point of order. I think it would be a little unfair if, having coached the House on how to perhaps deal with that situation, I was then to allocate further supplementary questions. I think the pursuit of this matter is for the future.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the issue that has just been discussed. I think the problem could have been solved if you had ruled out the supplementary question from the ACT member, because the Minister had already indicated to the House that she did not have responsibility. You accepted the question. If we are doing some coaching, then I think it could possibly go both ways.
That is an interesting point. I want to avoid ruling out questions if I can, because it would be unfortunate if I were to develop that practice too far. Members have raised an interesting issue, but I would like to see it handled more by members. If members feel that a Minister has been inconsistent in an area where members believe that the Minister has responsibility, once he or she has given an answer, then that opens up the territory.