11. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday, 16 June.
When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession or not in possession of substantive information that is not yet available to the public?
When I did that, that was the point at which I lost confidence in Dr Worth. I did not believe that his conduct befitted that of a Minister. I will not go into the specifics of the information, but I think members can rest assured that in losing confidence in Dr Worth I was satisfied that I could make that case.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question. It asked the Prime Minister whether he was in possession of material not yet in the public arena. The Prime Minister did not address that question.
Mr SPEAKERThe Prime Minister indicated that he did not intend, presumably in the public interest, to go into the matter in too much detail. The member obviously has a further supplementary question. I will listen very carefully to the Prime Minister’s answer.
Let me put the question again, then. When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession, or not in possession, of substantive information that is not yet public?
I will not go into the specifics of the information I had when I lost confidence in Dr Worth, because I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I pointedly did not ask the Prime Minister to tell us what the information was, and the reason for that is that the Prime Minister had already advised the House last week that it was not in the public interest for him to divulge it. The question is whether he had that information in the first place, and that question has not been addressed.
I take the point that the member has made. He is not asking what the information is; I take it that he is asking whether the Prime Minister had any information at the time he lost confidence in the Minister that was not in the public arena. It is totally up to the Prime Minister whether he answers on that specific issue. I invite him to consider whether he can answer the question as to whether he was in possession of any information that was not in the public arena.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In summary, I submit to you that it is not the Prime Minister’s choice whether he advises us—
Yes, it is. It is a point of order under Standing Order 377(1). My submission is that the Prime Minister does not have the discretion to decide whether he wishes to address the question. Standing Order 377(1) is a two-part Standing Order. The second part talks about the public interest and how that point might be invoked to not address a question. Otherwise, the Minister must seek to address the question. Mr Speaker, I put it to you with humility that you are obliged—[ Interruption]
—to uphold the first part of Standing Order 377(1). To briefly recapitulate, I say that the question is determinedly—on purpose, obviously—a narrow question. The question does not seek to learn what information is being withheld; it seeks to learn whether information is being withheld. Mr Speaker, I believe that you are bound to have the Minister seek to address that.
I appreciate the seriousness of the point of order that the honourable member has raised. He may note that when the point was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard, I put the particular issue of his question to the Prime Minister, and I think I summarised it reasonably when I put that to him. It was the Prime Minister’s judgment that it was not in the public interest to answer that particular question, and as Speaker I cannot judge that, because I do not know what information may or may not have been received—I am not in a position to judge that. In this case, only the Prime Minister can be the judge of whether it is in the public interest to divulge that information. Standing Order 377(1) makes it very clear that it is the right of a Minister not to answer a question, and that constitutes addressing the question. If a Minister says that it is not in the public interest for him or her to answer a question, he or she has addressed the question as required by that Standing Order. Therefore, I believe that the House has to accept the Prime Minister’s judgment that it is not in the public interest to answer that question further.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to your ruling, if I may raise another point of order under Standing Order 377(1), I submit to you that because the question is only about whether the Minister has information, for him to not answer it is disorderly. If, let us say, the Prime Minister has no information, then he has already told the House that he is withholding information under the second part of Standing Order 377(1), and has, in fact, contradicted himself in the course of a week. If, on the other hand, he has information that he is not of a mind to impart—and no one can require that of him; it is his choice alone—then it would seem to me that he is obliged to tell the House that he has information so that we can put to one side the possibility that he does not.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Not only is Mr Hodgson challenging the ruling that you just made, but also he is seeking to undo the ruling by Speaker Hunt, Speaker’s ruling 157/8, which says: “A member cannot demand a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to a question.” As the question was put to you by Mr Hodgson just then, he is effectively asking for a yes or no answer. The fact that he did not put on the end of his question: “…yes or no?” is irrelevant. That is the nature of the question. The Prime Minister has answered as adequately as is possible under the circumstances. Parliament should allow that to be the case. Numerous Speakers’ rulings in here, which I do not want to necessarily refer to, make it very clear that although members may not be satisfied with an answer to a question, that does not necessarily mean that the answer itself has in any way breached the Standing Orders. I support the ruling that you have just given. It makes it clear that if the Prime Minister determines that carrying on with this exchange in the way that Mr Hodgson wants is against the public interest, then that determination should be accepted by the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think I might be going down a trail of irrelevance here, but in considering the matter raised by Mr Brownlee, I ask you to consider also Speaker’s ruling 163/2—again, from Speaker Hunt—which says: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold.” It goes on to say that Ministers should, wherever possible, answer questions. I have been contemplating the Prime Minister’s reply in this particular area, and, unlike my colleague, I think I can contemplate one particular circumstance where it would not be in the public interest for the Prime Minister to answer the question. It is not a police matter. If it is a police matter then it would not hurt the Prime Minister to indicate that he held information; he would not have to say where it came from. I think the only area that it could possibly be is a security matter, and I think in leaving it like that, if it is not a security matter, he is leaving Dr Richard Worth’s name—
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
That was a very eloquently delivered piece of complete irrelevance from the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is interesting to note that on the same page of the Speakers’ Rulings, once again Speaker Hunt notes: “Question time is a political exchange. The adequacy of the performance of members, whether in Government or in Opposition, is judged on a political basis.” This nature of exchange is exactly that, and, as I have said, I do not think the point raised by Mr Mallard is relevant. Your ruling should stand.
Hon Peter DunneI just draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 162/3 and 162/4, particularly with reference to the public interest. In 162/3 Mr Speaker Steward in 1892 and Mr Speaker Gray in 1991 ruled that the determination of the public interest was “in the opinion of the Minister interrogated,”. In 162/4 your predecessor, Madam Speaker Wilson, ruled in 2008 that “ultimately, the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make.” My submission today is as it was last week: the determination whether the public interest criterion is satisfied rests not, with respect, with you as Speaker, but with the Minister who is being questioned at the time.
I thank honourable members; I think all have made valuable contributions to what I accept is a sensitive issue. But at the end of the day members will note that I have—in fact, today, a couple of times—asked members to not just address a question but answer some questions. But the quid pro quo, as the Standing Order intends, of Ministers being required to answer questions, is that if in their view it is not in the public interest to do so, they can say so and actually not give an answer. The Standing Order makes it very clear that it is possible to do that. The fact that a Minister chooses to do that tells a lot about the nature of the question, etc., and it actually says a lot in itself when the Minister, or on this occasion the Prime Minister, chooses to do that. So I think that, as the Hon Peter Dunne pointed out, the House has to accept that where a Minister invokes the public interest, the Speaker and the House have to accept that judgment on behalf of the Minister. I would far sooner have a Minister say it is not in the public interest than waffle on for half an hour about irrelevant stuff. I believe it is the proper implementation of the Standing Order.
Does the Prime Minister believe that his trenchant refusal to seek to address questions on this matter is a good look?
Yes, it is, because it shows that the Government is focused on the issues that really matter to New Zealanders, and that the Opposition is in the gutter.
Given that the Prime Minister said last week that he “acted fairly but firmly and swiftly.”, how might the public judge whether he acted fairly but swiftly and firmly when he has chosen not to tell them what he was acting on, or even whether he was acting on anything at all?
Firstly, because they can tell by the actions. I know the Opposition is not used to a Prime Minister who acts, but this side of the House is. That is the first point. The second point is that, in the end, the test of whether a Minister enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister is a subjective test, in the same way that it is a subjective test whether someone is promoted to Cabinet.