Madam SPEAKERAs requested, I have given further consideration to a dispute that arose on 22 March regarding the capacity in which the Hon Dover Samuels had made a statement. The primary rule for questions for Ministers is that the question must relate to a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. As Speaker Kidd stated in 1997 in Speaker’s ruling 139/3: “If there is no ministerial responsibility, there can be no question. An opinion that is sought from a Minister must relate to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.” If a Minister makes a comment on a matter for which the Minister has no ministerial responsibility—and it does happen from time to time—there can be no question to the Minister on that statement. If the subject matter of the statement falls within the responsibility of another Minister, that other Minister can be asked a question on the statement. And, of course, the Prime Minister can be asked a question on the statement. There is nothing new in these propositions.
In fact, the initial supplementary question to Mr Samuels about the statement he made was allowed, as it could conceivably have fallen within his area of responsibility as Associate Minister for Economic Development. When Mr Samuels was initially asked about his statement he did not say that he was speaking as a councillor; he said he was speaking from his experience as a councillor. So long as he was questioned on this basis and his replies were made on this basis, I permitted questioning to continue. It was only when he introduced his actions as a councillor into the reply, and then a member sought to question him in that capacity, that I intervened.
I reiterate: Ministers can be questioned only on matters for which they have responsibility. If they have made statements that impinge on those responsibilities, they can be questioned on them, regardless of the capacity in which the statements are made. I think that suitably worded questions could have been put to Mr Samuels last week on his statement.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are really two points. Firstly, do you accept that in that event you should have ruled Dr Smith’s question out of order, and we might have avoided those circumstances? Do you recall also that the issue of Dover Samuel’s speaking as a councillor was made clear only when he answered the initial question in the House?
Secondly, is it now a reasonable defence for a Minister simply to say that he or she should have made a statement in some other capacity, and therefore step outside the reach of the House’s right and responsibility to make inquiries when matters of public importance are seen to be exercised by a Minister?
I thank the member. I have made my ruling, and the member could perhaps consider it further when there is an opportunity to do so. I do not intend to anticipate questions that might be asked in the future, but I will endeavour to be consistent in terms of the ruling I have given.
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder, then, for the sake of clarity—because it now does become confusing in my mind and, I suspect, in the minds of a number of other members—whether you would at some time give us a considered opinion about when a Minister is actually a Minister. I had always thought that when Ministers made a comment or a statement, they did so as Ministers. It seems now that we have some confusion as to when a Minister is a Minister, because I had understood that Ministers were Ministers 24/7. If I am incorrect, it would be very useful if you could help the House by giving us a view of when that is not the case.
As I said to the previous member, I think members should take time to consider the ruling I have given when they have an opportunity to do so. It is quite a long one. Also, I do not see that any useful purpose can be served in anticipating hypothetical situations. When questions are asked and answers given, I will rule on matters as they arise.