Te Puni Kōkiri—Focus on Māori Potential

Hon Phil Goff Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have not had an interpretation.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

Quite right. I beg your pardon.

Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just check with you about the relevance of that question to the primary question. The primary question focused on Te Puni Kōkiri and its approach into the future. I want to check whether the question from the previous Minister is appropriate under that banner.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

The primary question asked whether the Minister was satisfied in terms of the focus by Te Puni Kōkiri on Māori potential. That opens up questions around Māori potential, and, indeed, on advice that the Minister may have received on certain matters relating to Māori potential. I realise it could be a difficult question, but it is perfectly in order.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I accept the point the honourable member makes that the primary question does have a range of possible openings in it.

Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this

As a member who is new to challenging some of the decisions in our House, I noted earlier, Mr Speaker, that you talked about parties explaining party policy. The question talked about members of the Māori Party, and, under that view, is the question still relevant and in order?

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I am happy to rule on this point of order. In so far as the Minister was asking whether the Minister had received advice from anyone, that is a perfectly fair question and the answer can be yes or no as to whether there was advice. But asking about advice from party people, as distinct from officials, would not be in order, because the Minister has no responsibility for any advice he might receive from party members. He does have responsibility for advice he receives from officials. I am sure members will understand the difference. Members can ask him as Minister whom he received advice from; the answer to that may be yes or no. But only advice from officials is relevant to his role as Minister.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I certainly do not want to question your ruling, but I would like to seek some clarification. Of course, it would be completely inappropriate to ask Dr Sharples about National Party policy, because Dr Sharples is a co-leader of the Māori Party. We have always been able to ask questions about Mr Key and National Party policy. Mr Key asked questions about the previous Prime Minister and Labour Party policy, because, obviously, she was the leader of the Labour Party in the House. So it does seem to me that we would be in a rather strange position if a Māori Party co-leader who is a Minister cannot be asked questions about matters relating to Māori Party policy, and input from his colleagues on policy. Similar questions to those have been asked in the past in the context of the Labour Party, the National Party, or whatever party it may be. We now just happen to have Ministers who are not members of one of the two major parties.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

If one was asking about Dr Sharples’ interaction with his colleagues about a matter outside his ministerial portfolio, then to object to that would be perfectly appropriate. But the question was about his discussion with his colleagues about matters inside his portfolio—that is, in relation to the actual nature of the question asked, which was about Māori potential. That is broad, but, then, that is the very nature of a policy ministry; it covers a very wide range of areas, and any areas that are relevant within that ministry’s work can come up. Mr Speaker, I would find your ruling very strange, because if we take that point, then we could ask Dr Sharples whether he had sought advice from various iwi leaders about Māori potential, and whether he had sought advice from local authorities about Māori potential, but not whether he had sought advice from his own Māori Party colleagues about Māori potential. I would find that a very strange position for us to end up in.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I think that members have raised a serious issue, and it is obviously one that we need to think about very carefully. The Minister clearly has responsibility for Government policy, but he is not responsible for members of the Māori Party in this House, because those members are not party to the Government in that regard. He has no responsibility as a Minister for the actions of the Māori Party. That is where we have to be a little careful, and I want to be very careful in my ruling not to expand what has traditionally been the accepted scope of question time. As I said before, I saw nothing wrong with the Minister being asked who had given him advice, but the question, as I heard it, related to the nature of what certain Māori Party people had said to the Minister. I believe that the point of order raised by Te Ururoa Flavell was a valid one in that the Minister is not accountable in this House for the advice given to him by those Māori Party members. If it had been official advice—from officials—that would be different. I do not believe I have changed the accepted interpretation of the Standing Orders. I am very happy to discuss the issue further with members of the Opposition, because it is an important issue and it is not going to go away, and I want to make sure that I am fair to all sides of the House. But on this occasion I will accept the point of order of Te Ururoa Flavell and rule the question out of order.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

The Minister is absolutely at liberty to answer the question in a way that he chooses. “Yes.” was a perfectly adequate answer. He does not need to add to it.