3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement: “All I can say is that in the 22 months that Mr Hide has been a Minister in my Government, he’s shown very good judgment and he has my full support.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEYHow was it good judgment on Mr Hide’s part to choose to cover up the theft of a dead baby’s identity by his law and order spokesperson, Mr Garrett?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall—and I am sure that the Clerk will be able to advise you—that there are Speakers’ rulings about the relationship between the Prime Minister’s responsibility for his Ministers and the Prime Minister’s responsibility for the actions of Ministers as leaders of parties. This, of course, was canvassed very well by the Opposition in question time in 2002, when the Rt Hon Helen Clark came up with the theory that it depended on what hat—I believe that was the term used—a Minister had on at the time. That question is right outside of those Speakers’ ruling provisions and cannot stand.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
The Leader of the House is quite right that this issue has been canvassed by the House quite a lot. I refer you, Mr Speaker, to Hansard, Volume 648, at page 17315, where the then Leader of the Opposition, John Key, asked: “Is the Prime Minister saying that the new standard for the way she will measure her Ministers is solely on their performance in their portfolio …”. He was very critical that that would be the only measure. The Leader of the Opposition is asking about the judgment of Ministers beyond just their narrow portfolio responsibilities to the way that they conduct themselves in the execution of their warrants to be Ministers, to be members of the Executive Council. The confidence and supply agreement for this Government relies on the parliamentary ACT Party, which has signed up to a no-surprises policy in respect of advising the Prime Minister of its composition. The Leader of the Opposition’s question to the Prime Minister is about the judgment of one of those Ministers who is party to the confidence and supply agreement, with the Prime Minister’s own previous statement making the point that Prime Ministers should not have a new standard for the way in which Ministers are measured that is solely based on their performance in their portfolios.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Mr Speaker, you need to see the whole of that Hansard, which, in fact, saw the Speaker rule—from my recollection—that that was not a reasonable position, because of Speakers’ rulings established in 2002 that dealt with the then breakdown of the Alliance and, particularly, the position of the Hon Jim Anderton, who at the time was the Deputy Prime Minister but, for a time, not the leader of the Alliance. There were numerous questions posed to the Prime Minister at that time. All of them were ruled out of order because it was ruled that although Prime Ministers have responsibility for Ministers and their actions as Ministers—in other words, the discharge of their portfolio responsibilities—they have no responsibility for their activities as leaders of a party.
Mr SPEAKER
Hon Rodney HideI will go further, Mr Speaker: it was established by Prime Minister Helen Clark that she did not even have responsibility for herself when she was acting as party leader—
Hon Ruth DysonThe point is that one could not ask a Prime Minister about her decisions as a party leader, only about her decisions as a Prime Minister. So it seems odd that one cannot ask, if you like, the Prime Minister of New Zealand about his decisions as leader of the National Party, yet somehow one can ask the Prime Minister of New Zealand about the decisions of another party.
Hon David ParkerI suggest another reason why this is relevant. The Prime Minister has responsibility for supervision of the application of the Cabinet Manual. I refer the Speaker to 11 September 2008, and a series of questions relating to the Rt Hon Winston Peters from the Hon Bill English, and from John Key around the same time. This question is one that, for example, was in order: “Can the Prime Minister confirm that one of her roles is to supervise the application of the Cabinet Manual to her Ministers, which says at all times Ministers are expected to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards?”. That is a reference to paragraph 2.52 of the Cabinet Manual, which notes that “A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities”—ministerial, political, and personal—and paragraph 2.53 states that “In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.” I suggest that this is a matter on which there can be questions to the Prime Minister.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 146/5—the repeated rulings of Speaker Wilson in 2006 and 2008. The 2008 rulings particularly apply to the situation that the honourable member raises. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister is not responsible for answering questions that relate to activities of Ministers in their capacity as leaders of parties. In any event, in this case the question goes back to a point where the Hon Rodney Hide was not a Minister, and, clearly, there would have been no responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister, who at the time was Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
Mr Speaker, while you have Speakers’ Rulings open, I note that Speaker’s ruling 147/1 states: “Where a question impinges on the Prime Minister’s official responsibilities as Prime Minister, it will not be ruled out of order just because there is a party connection.” Clearly, there is a party connection here; the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question about the judgment of one of the Prime Minister’s Ministers and the no-surprises policy that exists in the confidence and supply agreement, which has been tabled here in the House as part of the Government formation process, and which is underpinned by the Cabinet Manual. So there is a case not only of public interest but of ministerial responsibility in terms of the views of the Prime Minister on the judgment of one of his Ministers, and the attempt here to deflect or refuse to answer questions about that serves only to further highlight why the store the Prime Minister puts on, and his level of respect for, the judgment of one of his Ministers is a matter of public interest.
I thank honourable members for their contribution to this particular issue of order. It is a serious issue of order, and that is why I have taken some time to listen to members’ views on it and to check on various Speakers’ rulings—and members have quite rightly cited some important Speakers’ rulings. This is a tricky issue—I freely acknowledge that—because the Prime Minister is certainly not responsible for the conduct of another political party. Even in this House, as Prime Minister he is not responsible for the conduct of the party from which he himself comes.
The issue simply relates to whether the Prime Minister can be questioned on the judgment of a Minister. And the Prime Minister is responsible for the judgments of his Ministers—there is no question about that. What makes this particular question tricky is that the Prime Minister was questioned about the judgment of a Minister, and the example given was an example relating to a matter to do with the ACT Party. The question therefore turns on whether that rules out the question under our Standing Orders.
Let us look at the various Speakers’ rulings that guide me. One of the members mentioned Speaker’s ruling 147/1, which states that “Where a question impinges on the Prime Minister’s official responsibilities as Prime Minister, it will not be ruled out of order just because there is a party connection.” Yet there are other Speakers’ rulings, and I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee mentioned 146/5, which points out that “(1) The Prime Minister and Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities as Ministers, not as leaders of parties.” But the Prime Minister has not been questioned on this occasion in his role as leader of the National Party; the Prime Minister has been questioned on the judgment of a Minister, and the example that was given related to a matter to do with a party.
It would seem to me that the most appropriate ruling for me as Speaker—and it treads a pretty fine line, I acknowledge—is to ask the Prime Minister to answer the question in so far as it addresses the Minister’s judgment, and judgment generally, and the Prime Minister is not required to comment particularly on the detail of the matter relating to party matters. This is a most unusual question and a most unusual circumstance, and I am being very cautious here, but I believe that the Prime Minister is responsible for the judgment of his Ministers—there is no question about that. Therefore, although the example given does relate to matters to some extent within the ACT Party, it is a question principally about the judgment of a Minister, and in that regard I invite the Prime Minister to answer it but to be mindful of the fact that he is not responsible for matters within the ACT Party itself.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to dispute the position that you have come to, but I ask you to consider it a little further. We have Speaker’s ruling 146/6, which states: “The Prime Minister is answerable for any statements made as Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister is not answerable for actions taken in a non-ministerial capacity, whether as Leader of the Opposition or as leader of a political party.” If that ruling stands, then the Prime Minister would not be responsible for anything, for any question of judgment on his part, as leader of the National Party or in the time that he was the Leader of the Opposition. But now we seem to be saying that the Prime Minister does become responsible for answering questions about matters that were undertaken, decided, or whatever by another political party leader prior to the formation of the Government. The Prime Minister, it would seem to me, under Speaker’s ruling 146/4, and even 147/1, which you quoted, is responsible for matters that relate to ministerial judgment but surely not judgment that political parties make; otherwise, we are a very short step from the Prime Minister being responsible for the political policies of parties that are party to Government or are in some sort of governance arrangement with the party that is leading the Government, and that would be very unfortunate. I think this is not a fine line. I think it is patently clear that matters that relate to Mr Hide’s relationship with Mr Garrett prior to the formation of the Government are in the past and have nothing to do with the way in which he has exercised his responsibilities as a Minister, for which the Prime Minister is directly responsible. To now require the Prime Minister to reflect back on matters that are in the past is, I think, quite unreasonable.
Hon Peter DunneMr Speaker, Mr Brownlee has substantially covered the point I was going to raise, but I really wanted to raise a question that arises out of your original ruling. If the Prime Minister is to have a responsibility, is it not for the conduct and judgment of Ministers as they relate to their particular portfolios and the overall performance of the Government, rather than in just a blanket sense? There may be issues that fall outside the impact on a Minister’s portfolio or the overall activities of the Government, and, therefore, how can the line be that the Prime Minister has a responsibility in those areas as well? I think this is an extension of the point Mr Brownlee was raising, but I think it goes to the heart of what is the point at issue here.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
If I could address the matter that Mr Brownlee raised, it seems to me that he was saying—if I am correct—that because the alleged lack of judgment had occurred initially prior to Mr Hide becoming Minister, somehow it was not the Prime Minister’s responsibility to answer in that respect. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the judgment question may have occurred sometime before the member held the warrant, but continued—and the question goes to it—right up to when the warrant was picked up by Mr Hide, and continued up until, shall we say, a few days ago. So it does form ministerial responsibility. The alleged cover-up continued right through when he was a Minister.
I want to develop that argument, because I think Mr Cosgrove is right. If we take an example where something is withheld from a Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, but for that withholding, might not have made someone a Minister, because he might not trust him or her, that must be a matter that goes to the responsibility of the Prime Minister if in the future he decides to get rid of a Minister, as the Prime Minister chose to do in respect of Richard Worth. So I think there is no doubt that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the conduct of his Ministers. He can say he thinks that the conduct is perfectly acceptable to him, but he can be asked whether it is.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
The point that is being suggested by both the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon David Parker is that the Prime Minister as Prime Minister holds ultimate responsibility for everything his Ministers do and have done. Speakers’ rulings over a period of time—clearly, the incident concerning Winston Peters in 2008 comes to mind, but more poignantly, I think, the breakdown of the Alliance in 2002—clearly established that the Prime Minister does not have any responsibility for actions undertaken by leaders of political parties. We know that, for example, the Prime Minister cannot be questioned in the House about National Party dealings; the fact that he is the leader of the National Party is of no relevance to, or business of, this House. For this question to stand, there would need to be the citing of a particular failure of ministerial judgment as opposed to a perception or an allegation of a failure of judgment in relation to activities as a party leader. The issues around judgment as a party leader will, in fact, be judged by voters and by the general public. But the Prime Minister is not required to have a particular view on that. His responsibility is to ensure that he has a functioning ministry that can form a Government, and that is where it should stop. If we open this up, then I think it is, as I said before, a very short step to the Prime Minister having to answer for policy decisions and policy positions taken by other parties prior to their coming into Government arrangements.
I thank honourable members for their further points on this matter. I repeat what I said: this is actually a very tricky issue in relation to our Standing Orders, and an important issue, which is why I have allowed time on it. If I come back to the point raised by the Hon Peter Dunne, I have to disagree with the point made by him in so far as the Prime Minister not just is responsible for the conduct of his Ministers in pursuit of their ministerial responsibilities but has a wider role of responsibility in respect of the conduct and judgment of his Ministers. I think there is no question that the Prime Minister has wider responsibility there, as distinct from individual Ministers—the Prime Minister has wider responsibility. Of course, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for what another party or its leader might do, and that is where this issue gets quite complex in that we have a leader of a party who is also a Minister, and the Prime Minister has responsibility for the judgment of that Minister in his capacity as a Minister. Therefore, the question would normally have been a perfectly proper question, but the example given in the question related to an action of the Minister that it could be argued was in some way related to his role as party leader of the ACT Party, and I accept argument down that track.
But where I face a dilemma is that if I rule the question out totally, I am tending to shift the line somewhat in terms of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities in respect of the conduct and judgment of Ministers, and I do not want to do that, because the Prime Minister must be accountable for his Ministers. He is not accountable for statements made by any National Party person. He is not accountable in this House for his role as the leader of the National Party—not at all; there is no way it is getting confused with that, at all. Someone mentioned Speaker’s ruling 146/6. That is a totally different issue; it is not relevant to this particular issue. This issue is the very difficult point of the example given in the question, which asked the Prime Minister whether he had confidence, or whatever it was—he was being questioned about the Minister’s judgment. The example given was right on the margins. If the question had been directly to do with that issue, I would have ruled it out. But the question was not directly to do with that issue, at all. The question was about the Prime Minister’s acceptance of the judgment of a Minister acting in a certain way.
A lot of time has gone by. I believe that I cannot rule out the question. However, I stress to the Prime Minister that he is in no way required to comment on the particular detail of a matter relating to the ACT Party. So that the House can remember what the supplementary question was, I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat the question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your ruling, I think it would be useful now if you were able to give us a steer on what Speaker’s ruling 146/1 now means. It reads: “The Prime Minister is not responsible for the decisions of another party, but she”—it was in the case of Helen Clark—“may address the question as long as she does not address the other parties’ attitude on it.” We all know, whether or not we want to dance round the words, that we are talking about the attitude of another party to a particular set of circumstances. In that event I think this ruling almost seems slightly contradictory to the advice you have just offered the House.
No, I do not need further help on this one, because we must not take further time of the House today on this. I accept fully that the Leader of the House is raising important issues, but I would argue that this is not a matter of a decision of another party; this is the judgment of one of the Prime Minister’s Ministers. Remember, I have made very clear, and the Standing Orders make it very clear, that the Prime Minister is responsible for the behaviour and conduct—and therefore the judgment—of all his Ministers, regardless of their party affiliations. They are all Ministers, and the Prime Minister is accountable for all of those Ministers, regardless of their party. So one can argue, I believe reasonably, that the Prime Minister has a responsibility in respect of the judgment of all of those Ministers. I accept that the Prime Minister in answering the question can be very careful, and need not trespass on the affairs of another party. It does make answering the question very difficult; I accept that, and I do not pretend that it is easy. But if I were to rule out that entire question, I believe that I would be contravening that fundamental responsibility of a Prime Minister. That is why I am ruling in this way, and I make it very clear that I am not seeking to shift the goalposts or the dividing lines on this, at all. The Prime Minister is not responsible for leaders of other parties; he is not responsible for political party issues, or for leaders’ issues. This is a matter, though, of the judgment of one of his Ministers, and he is responsible for that—but not for the detail of what went on in a party.
How was it good judgment for his Minister Mr Hide to have covered up his law and order spokesman Mr Garrett’s theft of a dead baby’s identity?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you recognised that the Prime Minister did not answer the question, which was about how that action showed good judgment on the part of his Minister.
The difficulty I have with this is that, as I have pointed out, the Prime Minister is responsible for his Ministers’ conduct beyond their portfolio responsibilities. So I would ask the Prime Minister to respond a little more broadly than that, because he is responsible for his Ministers beyond just their portfolio responsibilities. He has a wider accountability for his Ministers.
I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. [ Interruption] I apologise to the Minister. This is a very serious issue, and the Opposition should, in my view, respect the fact that the Speaker is putting a fair bit of pressure on the Government over an issue that is important to the Opposition. If those members do not want me to close it down totally, they will respect that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A few moments ago you advised that the Prime Minister did not need to answer questions that related to actions or activities that were to do with any particular member’s or Minister’s role as a leader of a political party. The question from Mr Goff related specifically to the activities of a leader in accepting a position related to a member. The Prime Minister, quite rightly—
No. I have heard the member sufficiently. I have stressed on several occasions that the Prime Minister is responsible for the general conduct of his Ministers; there is no questioning that. The Prime Minister is responsible for more than their judgment and conduct in respect of their portfolio responsibilities. Although I say it is a bit tricky and a bit difficult, an answer is fairly obvious to me. With regard to avoiding the specific detail of the question, it was not totally necessary to try to confine the answer to portfolio responsibilities, because I do accept that that was dodging the question, pretty clearly. I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to answer the question as it was asked, and not to try to confine it just to portfolio responsibilities. The Prime Minister has responsibilities more widely than that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That seems to be a most unreasonable position, because the question started with “How was …”, and asked how that was an exercise of good judgment. The Prime Minister can judge his Ministers only on their performance as Ministers. So to start widening it out, and to say that the Prime Minister has some sort of jurisdiction over all sorts of other aspects of the lives of Ministers—or, for that matter, of members of their parties—I think is extremely dangerous territory to run into. I do not think that we should allow that question. I think that the Prime Minister answered very clearly: in his experience, Mr Hide has exercised good judgment in the discharge of his portfolio responsibilities. How clear can that be?
I do not need further assistance on this, because we are taking a great deal of time. Under our constitutional arrangements a Prime Minister who is not prepared to take responsibility for the conduct and behaviour of his Ministers is not fulfilling the role. Our requirements are that a Prime Minister is responsible not just for the conduct within the portfolio areas but for the general conduct of all his Ministers. Parties have nothing to do with this; this is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I would not have thought it difficult for the Prime Minister to answer that he has general confidence in his Minister’s judgment. That is not constraining it to the portfolio responsibilities, and it avoids the detail to do with the ACT Party. I would not have thought it was difficult to find an answer to the question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know we are taking up a lot of time, but you may have missed the fact that in the process of the point of order, Mr Goff changed his question. His first question was about the ACT Party’s decision to have Mr Garrett as a candidate. The second question that Mr Goff put alleged, somehow, that I covered something up. It might be true—[ Interruption]
No. The member is starting now to debate the issue of the substance of the question asked. That leads to disorder. We will not have that. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition asked, as the member suggested, as the first supplementary question what the honourable member had done as leader of the ACT Party, because the Prime Minister clearly has no responsibility for that whatsoever. If I got that wrong, then I do apologise to everyone concerned, but I do not believe I got that wrong. I will check the Hansard and certainly apologise to the House if I got that wrong.
The point that I cannot allow the House to avoid is the Prime Minister’s responsibility not just for the judgment of all his Ministers in their portfolio areas but also for their conduct, behaviour, and judgment. Those are matters for which the Prime Minister is responsible. But he does not have to go into any great detail at all about this particular issue. He is responsible for the judgment of his Ministers only in general terms, not on any particular issue.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that I may not have expressed it well, but my point was this: to allege a cover-up is to suggest an action. It would suggest that a person as a Minister did something to hide it. There are plenty of things that we know about MPs that we do not tell others about, and that is not covering them up.
In my view, the Prime Minister is perfectly capable of answering the question. He does not need to go into any of that sort of stuff. The question does not require him to do any of that, at all. The question purely required that the Prime Minister express whether he had confidence in a particular Minister’s judgment. That is an important constitutional matter in this country. If the Prime Minister loses confidence in a Minister’s judgment, then that is a serious matter. The only extent to which the Prime Minister has to answer this question is in relation to whether he has confidence in the judgment of a Minister. But it cannot be confined just to portfolio responsibilities, because the Prime Minister has a wider responsibility than that. That is all I am asking the Prime Minister to answer, not to get into detail about whether there was any particular cover-up or what constitutes a cover-up. That is irrelevant to the Prime Minister’s role. He was questioned about whether he has confidence in a Minister’s judgment, and that is a matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I have no desire to prolong this any further. But an important issue arises out of your comments in relation particularly to Speaker’s ruling 146/5(1). You have made it very clear in the House this afternoon that the Prime Minister has a responsibility for the judgment of his Ministers as well as for their particular actions. Speaker’s ruling 146/5(1) says: “The Prime Minister and Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities as Ministers,”, which, on the face of it, would appear to be a different emphasis. I appreciate that the House is in very unusual territory. I wonder whether the way through it might be for you to give a considered ruling, not today but perhaps tomorrow, on this point, bearing in mind Speaker’s ruling 146/5(1) and the rulings you have made in the House today. This issue may well arise in the future, and I think it would be in everyone’s interest to make sure we get it absolutely right at this point. As things stand at the moment, it could be held that there is a contradiction between your ruling and the ruling that was in place previously.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I appreciate that this is taking some time, but I hope you will note that it is not because the Opposition is continuing to raise points of order. It seems to us that you have stated a position on two or three occasions now, and Government Ministers and Ministers from support parties in the Government who take ministerial warrants are now trying to argue their way back from it, but the ruling you have given makes it quite clear. If Mr Goff had been asking questions about Mr Garrett as a member of Parliament, then there is no question that those questions would have been ruled out of order. He was asking the Prime Minister questions about one of his Ministers. Regardless of which party Ministers come from—it does not make it any worse or better if they come from a party that is not the National Party—the Prime Minister retains responsibility for them. Part of our system, which Mr Parker has gone through with regard to the Cabinet Manual, means that when multiple parties make up an executive, they are still accountable to Parliament in exactly the same way. You have given a ruling to us on this already, and we have been thwarted from the continuation of question time today by multiple points of order from the Government.
I hear all members. I would point out to the Hon Peter Dunne in relation to Speaker’s ruling 146/5(1) that had the Prime Minister been asked whether he agreed with the actions of the Hon Rodney Hide as leader of the ACT Party, it would have been totally out of order, or whether he agreed with the actions of Rodney Hide as a Minister, then as the leader of the ACT Party, that would have been totally out of order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for a Minister’s actions, as that Speaker’s ruling points out. That is not the substance of the question. The substance of the question is whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the judgment of a Minister, and that is a slightly different question. I am very conscious that this is a very important issue—this boundary between the Prime Minister’s role as Prime Minister, party responsibilities, and Ministers’ roles. I accept fully that this is a vexed area for responsibility. Rather than screw it up as Speaker, I am prepared to give a more considered ruling: to give some further thought to the matter, and take into consideration all the issues that have been raised. I make it clear for the future, though, that Prime Ministers are responsible for the conduct of their Ministers. Sometimes that is not easy, but I do not believe the Speakers’ rulings that have been referred to in any way relieve the Prime Minister of that responsibility. I am very happy to look at the matter further, in the interests of making progress. At this point, if I am going to do that, I probably should abandon this question for today. [ Interruption] So that I do not cost the Opposition further on the matter, I will listen to further questions, but clearly they cannot follow exactly this track. If I am to consider the matter further, as the House appears to want me to do, then the questions cannot be exactly the same as before.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition has put up with repeated challenges of your initial ruling. The Cabinet Manual is absolutely clear. The precedents—
The member will resume his seat immediately. I have indicated to the House that I will give this matter serious consideration. Had that member been in the executive, he would have wanted the Speaker to do exactly the same thing. I would not mind betting that he has never seen a Speaker push an executive as hard as this before. I make it very clear to the House that I will make a very fair ruling on this. If I give it further thought, it will not be to let any Minister or Prime Minister escape from his or her responsibilities, but I will not have that sort of thing in the House today.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect you, but we have a dilemma. I accept in good grace what you are trying to do to give a definitive ruling, but I ask how the questions of Mr Goff or other members are to proceed if members have very little guidance now as to what is in order to ask and what is not in order—
The member is just taking further time of the House. It is very clear that if I rule on the matter, the issue has not gone away. If I give a fully considered ruling on the matter, then the honourable Leader of the Opposition will be able to pursue the matter with absolute clarity. But my concern is that this is a hugely important issue, and I want to make sure that I do not blur boundaries or muddy the waters when I make a definitive ruling on this matter. I have been sufficiently convinced that I run a risk, perhaps, of shifting the current boundary lines.
Some would argue that the Prime Minister has already answered the question today. If members want me to go down that track, I could have said “OK, the Prime Minister has already answered the question. Let it all roll.”, but I am not sure whether the questioner would have felt comfortable with that, at all. In fact, the questioner raised a point of order about the Prime Minister’s answer. So I could have just got off the hook by saying “OK, let us keep going, treat that as an answer, and ignore the point of order from the honourable member’s own leader.” But I take question time too seriously to allow that to happen.
This is a serious matter, and I have to make very clear the issue of the responsibility of the Prime Minister, so that we do not have this problem in the future.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we just go back to where we were before that last volley of points of order started, the Prime Minister had given a response to the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition took a point of order to say he was not satisfied with that answer and you ruled in his favour. So we are still at the point where those points of order started, when you said the Prime Minister had the responsibility to answer his first supplementary question before we go back to that—that is the first point.
The second point is that we have sat and listened respectfully to the rulings you have made, and we have not challenged that process. We have sat and watched Government Ministers repeatedly get up and, after you had given a ruling, be able to give very long points of order in response to what was said. We want to support you in your role as Speaker and in the reforms you are making to question time, but we do feel very uncomfortable that once you have given a ruling, Government Ministers are repeatedly able to stand and speak to that ruling at length, and to give the impression that that has somehow altered the course of question time for that day. I think that would be a very bad impression to give. I know that it is not the one that has happened, but I think we have to be very mindful of the fact that when the Opposition sits back and supports your rulings, we do not want to see Ministers then abuse that by taking point of order after point of order. I think the smirk on the Leader of the House’s—
The member is now getting into dangerous territory. [ Interruption] Members are lucky that I could not pick who was making the interjections then. If members do not want me to give a considered ruling on the matter, then that is fine, but I have indicated to the House that I will give a considered ruling on this matter because I sense it is so important. If members agree with that, I will invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to ask further questions in so far as we are able to today, given the uncertainty about the way that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings apply to this particular situation.
The answer to the last question I have to accept as having been given at the moment. If I am to consider the Standing Orders further, then I have to accept that last answer. I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I do not want to prolong things, but this is far too important to allow the trivialising of it by the shadow Leader of the House to stand. Mr Speaker, I would ask also that when you consider your judgment, you look back through the Hansard of the time when Taito Phillip Field was in some difficulty. The Prime Minister was being questioned at that time, and that may give you quite a strong lead as to how much a Prime Minister has been required to be accountable for the judgment of Ministers, given that a number of Ministers were in full knowledge of some of Mr Field’s activities at that time.
I will not hear any further on the matter. I assure the honourable member that the Leader of the House’s last contribution will not alter my judgment at all.
I apologise to the honourable member. The Hon David Parker will get to his feet and apologise for that outburst, or he will leave the Chamber.
Why has the Prime Minister continued to argue to the House today that Rodney Hide has good judgment, when Mr Hide himself in recent days has admitted to lacking judgment to a serious degree?
Because in my experience, in carrying out his portfolio responsibilities he has exercised good judgment. [ Interruption]
I now ask Grant Robertson to rise to his feet and apologise to the Speaker for asking the Speaker to stand up for himself.
Grant RobertsonWhen the Prime Minister promised that his administration would set high standards, does he believe that his Minister Mr Hide has complied in every respect with the high standards he promised to set?
Has he, as Prime Minister, ever sacked a Minister for a reason other than lack of good judgment; if so, when, and for what reason?
Did the Prime Minister force Richard Worth to resign as Prime Minister; if so, for what reason if not for the good performance of his office?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said this was a serious matter. I asked a serious question. Would you like me to reword it?
Did he force Richard Worth to resign as Minister for a reason other than good performance; if so, for what reason?
Does he accept that he is now almost alone in this country in believing that Rodney Hide has good judgment and has shown it in recent years?
Has he received my report to him that the difference between Mr Goff and me is that Mr Goff wants me to go and, like the rest of the House, I want Mr Goff to stay?
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member, in particular, has gone to some lengths today to try to prevent questions from being asked, by dancing on the head of a pin in that respect. How was that question in order? It is hard for anyone to see how he has responsibility for a member of the Opposition, given that he did not want any questions to be asked about him as a Minister of the Crown.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the Prime Minister had received my report.
That is the dilemma that I face, given the broad nature of the question asked and the supplementary questions relating to confidence in people. The Prime Minister has been asked whether he received that member’s report, comparing his behaviour with someone else’s, and the Prime Minister, I believe, is entitled to answer about that report.
Yes, I have received that report, and I can confirm that I have more confidence in Mr Goff than Mr Cunliffe has.