8. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Economic Development
Does he agree that New Zealanders wish to see measurable interim milestones between now and 2025 to achieve pay parity with Australia, so as to assess whether the Government is making any progress on this goal?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this
As I clearly told the member yesterday, I have no ministerial responsibility for the establishment of milestones in this regard. I do not agree with the member’s insistence that I do have such responsibility, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to give any other answer to this question than the one I have given.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, when the Minister replied in that way, it was possibly fair enough, because it was in reply to a supplementary question. This is a question on notice, and the responsibility on the Minister is that if another Minister has responsibility for that area—if any other Minister does and he does not—then it is his responsibility to transfer the question, not just to deny responsibility when the question comes up.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
If you look at the question, you will see that it began with “Does he agree …”. That asks for an opinion. I explained to Mr Parker that I am the wrong Minister to ask that opinion of, but he clearly links it to questions that he has asked in the past. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to assume that he might have a cunning supplementary question that would extract, perhaps, further information on the portfolio responsibilities that I have.
Mr SPEAKER
Hon Rodney HideThe primary responsibility for deciding to whom a question should be addressed lies with the member of Parliament who lodges the question, so it is quite important that members take care to ask it of the right Minister. It is then up to the Minister as to whether to transfer the question. If the fact of the matter is that the Opposition asks it of an inappropriate Minister, it is perfectly within order for the Minister to answer the question by saying “You have the wrong one.”
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I am digging back now into the recesses of my memory, but you will find a ruling from, I think, Mr Speaker Burke, or possibly Mr Speaker Wall. It probably does not appear within the Speakers’ Rulings that you have there, but it was made when a National member asked a question of the Hon Stanley Rodger in a similar way. Mr Rodger answered in a very similar way to the way that Mr Brownlee has answered now, and the ruling was that the Minister, if he did not have responsibility, should have transferred the question to the Minister who did have it.
I beg the indulgence of the House while I consider this matter, because an interesting issue has arisen. The reason why it is important is that it would be unacceptable for the answering of questions to be avoided simply through allowing a Minister who is not responsible to have the question lodged in his or her name, then come to the House and say it is not his or her responsibility, and for that to be the end of the matter. I have been exploring Speakers’ Rulings while the Hon Trevor Mallard was talking just now, and I note that the matter has arisen previously. There is no question about that, and I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 145/6, which states: “Where a Minister indicates a question is outside his or her area of portfolio responsibility, or challenges its validity, acceptance of the question must be reconsidered. In order to save a question for a member, the Clerk’s Office may negotiate rewording of the question. This will of necessity involve some give and take.” That describes a situation that is not possible today, because the Clerk’s Office has not had the opportunity to do that.
I think all that I can do for the time being, given that this situation has arisen today, is to ask that where a Minister feels there is no responsibility in his or her portfolio area in relation to a question put to him or her, that Minister should seek to have the question transferred. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that. Otherwise the dilemma is that questions will be lost, because the only people who ultimately know who has responsibility for particular matters are Ministers. We cannot necessarily expect members who lodge questions to know with certainty which Minister has responsibility. Today we have to let this matter go, and the member David Parker will have to pursue his question as best he can, but I ask that in the future when a Minister feels a primary question is not in his or her area of responsibility, that Minister should have the question transferred to the appropriate Minister. I think that is only reasonable. I am prepared to consider the matter further, if members disagree with that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the ruling you have given, but I ask you to consider the dilemma. The question asked “Does he agree that New Zealanders wish to see …”, etc. Mr Parker could have asked that of any Minister. Questions need to be more specifically directed to Ministers and their portfolios. Question time is the Opposition’s opportunity to question the Government, not to have a broad speculation about what might be the wish of New Zealanders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I have here the third edition of McGee, and on page 559 it states: “A Minister is under an obligation to transfer a question to the appropriate Minister if it has been misdirected. It is not satisfactory to reply to a question by saying that it should have been directed to another Minister. If that is so, the Minister should have arranged its transfer in the first place.” It refers to Hansard, Volume 483, at page 224, which could well, given the timing of it, relate to the incident involving Stanley Rodger to which I referred earlier.
I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for that. He has basically confirmed what I was putting to the House, which is that on the basis of my quick reading of Speakers’ Rulings and what is logical around this matter, it would be unreasonable for the executive to be able to avoid answering questions if they were not transferred to the appropriate Minister.
I will come back to the point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. The honourable Minister seems to be saying he is not arguing that the entire question is outside his area of responsibility. The fact that he is being asked for an opinion as to whether he agrees with what New Zealanders might wish to see does not put the question outside his area of responsibility, because Ministers can be asked for opinions these days. In the old days, they could not be, but these days, under the current Standing Orders, Ministers can be asked for opinions. The substance of the question is whether there should be measurable interim milestones between now and 2025 in respect of achieving pay parity with Australia. If that matter is within the Minister’s portfolio responsibility, then the question is within his responsibility, and it is not for me to rule on that.
Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. The House has been very good in considering a very interesting point of order. Let us not wreck it now.
How can his Government’s refusal to provide any milestones between now and its 2025 target date be reconciled with Steven Joyce’s statement that “The Government does not dodge its milestones”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Every year the Government produces a Budget. The Budget is a comprehensive document. It is delivered by the Minister of Finance. It has the Budget speech, the Fiscal Strategy Report, and the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. New Zealanders and commentators are quite capable of taking the information that they may require from those documents.
Is the real reason that his Government is refusing to be held accountable for achieving any milestone between now and 2025 that they show Bernard Hickey to be right when he recently said: “We are losing a whole generation of workers before our eyes and our government appears to be sitting on its hands hoping the problem will go away.”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
No. But I invite the member to look at the appalling statistics of the previous Labour Government between 1999 and 2008, when there was an absolute flight of talent from this country out of fear of what his Government was doing to young people.
Is the real reason that there are no milestones—not one—between now and 2025 that National will stand up to be judged on that National has no credible plan to meet its election promise to close the wage gap?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
No. It will not matter how often David Parker likes to sit in the back of the car and scream “When will we get there?”; the fact is that the Government does have an agenda. We have taxation reform. We have investment in infrastructure, roads, and ultra-fast broadband. We have a research and development package, reform of the labour market, electricity market reform, developing skills and education, cutting red tape and regulation—
Catherine DelahuntyI imagine that the point of order being raised by Catherine Delahunty is that she cannot hear. I say to the House that is totally unreasonable. The member who asked the question challenged whether the Government had a credible plan to achieve closure of the gap. As the Minister who was answering the question sought to outline the Government’s plan in that regard, I could not hear what he was saying. If the member asks a question about a credible plan, we ought to hear the answer about the credible plan. I invite the Hon Gerry Brownlee to carry on with that answer.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
The Government does have a credible plan. It involves a number of initiatives, which include taxation reform, and investment in broadband and infrastructure like roads. As well, there is an increased research and development package; reform of the labour market; electricity market reform; developing skills and education; the announcement this week of nine new trade academies; the cutting of red tape and regulation, which is part of an ongoing programme; the trade agreements that Mr Groser is negotiating throughout the world; the reform of the Resource Management Act, which has already had some effect on the economy; the transition to the International Growth Fund for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise; focusing all of the Government’s resources on front-line services; and strengthening the science system with the arrangements that we have made. Mr Speaker, you have invited me to outline the plan, and it is extensive. It is just a shame that Mr Parker does not know more about it.
If it is so obvious, why can the Minister not see what is obvious to many, including New Zealand’s largest newspaper the New Zealand Herald when it said of the Government’s economic performance, in a recent editorial: “when relatively little is done, relatively little happens. Things can even go backwards.”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
The New Zealand Herald is well known for having various editorial opinions at various times.