4. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
What consultation was carried out before the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
It has been a long process. There have been a number of consultations.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submit to you that that answer did not address the question. It sort of waved in the general direction of the question, but it gave no specifics as to consultation, at all.
Mr SPEAKERGiven that the question was on notice, and that there has been considerable time to prepare the answer, I believe that the honourable member has a valid complaint.
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
This process has been through Cabinet, it has been through the Cabinet appointment and honours committee, and it has also been discussed with one of our coalition partners.
The honourable member’s colleagues might pay him some respect; he is asking a supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Did the Minister indicate to Peter Dunne in March that Christine Rankin would not be appointed?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I met with Mr Dunne in March, and we discussed Christine Rankin’s impending appointment, but I do not believe that that was the end of the process. There was a discussion to be had after that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order. It was a very straightforward question: did she, or did she not, indicate to Peter Dunne that Christine Rankin would not be appointed? She did not address that in her answer. She said she had a discussion with him—
I do not need assistance on this occasion. I believe that with that kind of question the member cannot expect an explicit answer. He cannot expect the particular answer he wants to that kind of question. I think the Minister indicated in her answer that she had had a discussion. The member has further supplementary questions with which to pursue the matter.
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
Would it be reasonable to say that the reinstatement of Christine Rankin to a position in the Government is similar to the reinstatement of Trevor Mallard to Labour’s front bench by Phil Goff following a conviction for assault and a period off the Labour front bench?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. The member cannot authenticate that question. The question cannot be authenticated, because I was not convicted of assault.
We keep going through the same process all the time. The member cannot use the point of order procedure to question the accuracy of the member’s question. The question does not have to be authenticated; it is a supplementary question. I fully understand if the member wishes to make a personal explanation about that; he could certainly seek leave to do so.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[ Interruption] Well, are we going to have points of order in silence? That does not seem to be the case today.
The member will resume his seat. If he makes that kind of comment during points of order, inevitably there will be responses. A point of order will be terse, to the point, and directed to me as Speaker.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
The key thing is around the authentication of a supplementary question. If an assertion that is not true is made that a member of the House has been convicted of something, you cannot just allow that to pass on the basis that it is a debatable matter, not to be raised by way of a point of order. A member has stood and told you that he has not been convicted of that, yet you have allowed that question to go.
The Speaker cannot judge the accuracy of questions. There is merit in the member’s point of order in that unnecessary allegations should not be introduced into a supplementary question. But it seemed to me that the question was making a very particular point, and the matter related to a member’s personal interest. If, in fact, it was offensive to that member’s personal interest, that is why there is a personal explanation procedure: the member can clarify the point and no one can dispute it after that. But we cannot debate the accuracy of answers or questions by way of point of order. It is totally outside the Standing Orders to do so, because it always leads to disorder—it always leads to disorder. Either the member is offended by that allegation because it is wrong, and he therefore wishes to seek leave to make a personal explanation, or he is not.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the matter goes to your role as Speaker and to your responsibilities to protect the minority in this House. You have received my word by way of point of order—
The member will please resume his seat. The reason I have not received the member’s word by way of point of order is that there is no process for me to do that. The member has said that, but it is not in order. I cannot hear it because it is not in order for me to hear it. If the member is offended by something that is inaccurate—
There may be a long history but it is, in fact, totally contrary to the Standing Orders of this Parliament—unless Parliament wants to change its Standing Orders, and I suggest that it does not, because raising debating material under points of order invariably leads to disorder. I think it would be best—if the member does not wish to seek leave to make a personal explanation—if I see whether the Hon Sir Roger Douglas would be prepared to rephrase his question in a way that is, perhaps, less offensive to the member.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Given the exchange that we had in the second question today that related to the activities of a member, surely a natural extension of that would be to protect the Hon Trevor Mallard by ruling the question out, because the Minister, surely, cannot be responsible for the member’s actions or any consequences of his actions.
Metiria TureiI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Excuse me for pursuing the matter, but I would refer you to Speakers’ Rulings and seek your clarification on Speakers’ rulings 44/2 and 44/3. Speaker’s ruling 44/2 states: “It is the right of any member to challenge a statement of another member, especially if there is any suggestion of improper conduct on the part of a member.” Speaker’s ruling 44/3 states: “If a member feels that repeated reference to some matter in the member’s private life is a reflection on the member’s integrity, then the member is entitled to the protection of the Chair, and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter.” Unless there is some reason why those rulings do not apply, I would suggest that they apply directly to this matter, that Mr Mallard is entitled to your protection, and that the member should be told to refrain from pursuing that matter.
I will certainly look at the matter the member has raised, to make sure that I take full cognisance of that, but I think the best way to resolve the matter may be if the honourable member is prepared to rephrase his question in a way that does not cause offence. I think it might help the House.
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
I will try not to cause offence; I am happy to withdraw those words “conviction for assault” if they are incorrect. I repeat the question. Would it be reasonable to say that the reinstatement of Christine Rankin to a position in the Government is similar to the reinstatement of Mr Mallard to the front bench of the Labour Party by Phil Goff? As I found myself on one or two occasions when I was removed from the front bench, time heals most things.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Christine Rankin has not been appointed to any position in the Government.
I think the question is of such questionable relevance that we should, in fact, rule it out and move on.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is the Minister satisfied that Christine Rankin has left behind her culture of extravagance and her other bizarre behaviour; if so, how did she become satisfied of that?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Christine Rankin will not decide how a budget is spent at the Families Commission. She is one of seven commissioners; they will be making agreements together around a table.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Will the Minister reconsider her decision in light of the resignation of the highly respected Druis Barrett—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
—the highly respected Druis Barrett—someone recognised right around the House—from the Families Commission advisory group because of the appointment of Christine Rankin and, in particular, her attitude to Māori?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I repeat that Christine Rankin is one of seven commissioners. I will not be revisiting that decision.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Which comment is accurate: that of Mrs Turia that she had not been consulted, or that of her colleague, who reported that Mrs Turia was present at the Cabinet appointments and honours committee and did not express opposition to the appointment of Christine Rankin?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I cannot comment on what Minister Turia said. I have not heard her comments on whether or not—
Hon Tariana Turia