Madam SPEAKERThe Hon Tony Ryall raised a point of order on Wednesday, 25 October seeking a considered ruling on the issue of ministerial responsibility for matters connected with the administration of party and member support funded through Vote Parliamentary Service. Mr Ryall’s point of order drew attention to the lack of a clear accountability framework for the appropriations made in respect of each party for party and member support. Resolving this is not a matter of order in the House. It is a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission and may ultimately require legislative change. However, I accept that it may be relevant to whether questions comply with Standing Order 369.
The appropriations for party and member support are contained in Vote Parliamentary Service. The Speaker is the responsible Minister. But these appropriations may be expended by both members and Ministers. When Ministers and their staff utilise these appropriations they are doing so not in their capacity as Ministers but in their capacity as members of their parliamentary party. Therefore, Ministers cannot be held responsible for these appropriations or the activities they fund. Responsibility lies with the Speaker as the responsible Minister.
Mr Ryall is correct. Ministers’ staff are funded from Vote Ministerial Services. Ministers may be questioned about the activities of their staff as they relate to their ministerial responsibilities. The Prime Minister is the responsible Minister for Vote Ministerial Services. The Prime Minister may, therefore, be questioned about the appropriations in Vote Ministerial Services and services provided under the vote.
However, the Prime Minister is not responsible, as Prime Minister, for the administration of member and party support funding provided for the party leader’s office, nor is she answerable to the House for the services staff in her office may provide in this capacity. While the legal and employment structures may not make this distinction particularly clear, the Prime Minister is not answerable for actions taken in a non-ministerial capacity. The Prime Minister’s position is no different from that of other leaders of parties. They are not accountable to the House as party leaders or for the actions of their staff in administering party and member support appropriations. It is the Speaker who must account.
What I propose to do is to allow questions to the Prime Minister and Ministers about their offices, on the basis that generally these are fully funded by Vote Ministerial Services. But questions for oral answer that explicitly address Vote Parliamentary Service appropriations or their administration will not be allowed. These can be put down as questions for written answer to the Speaker.
Members need to understand that I may not always be in a position to make an informed judgment about this distinction. Therefore, I do not propose to take the initiative in ruling out supplementary questions where ministerial responsibility is not clearly disclosed. As Speaker Burke ruled in 1987 “it is incumbent on the Minister to challenge the validity” of such questions—Speaker’s ruling 141/3.
Finally, I remind members that they cannot demand a particular answer. The answer is the Minister’s responsibility. Provided that the Minister addresses the question, it is not the role of the Speaker to judge the adequacy of the reply. Members cannot appeal to the Speaker every time they get a reply with which they are not satisfied—Speaker’s ruling 154/5.
I am aware, members, that that is a long ruling, but the issue is a somewhat complex one. Copies of it are available from the Bills Office for those of you who wish to look at it further.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. We will most certainly read it, given the length of it. But, most immediately, a question comes to mind. I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you have looked back at the Hansard record to see whether, in your view—related to your new ruling—the question that was asked on that particular day to the Prime Minister would have met the test that you will now apply.
I am sorry, Mr Brownlee; please be seated. I gave the ruling on a supplementary question. The ruling was that a staff member may have different roles; that is what I have said in my ruling. What I have attempted to do in today’s ruling is explain in more detail than there was the opportunity to do at that time. May I suggest to you that you consider the ruling. I am happy to hear any comments you wish to make after you have had an opportunity to consider it.
Given that we have a ruling that arose from a particular situation, I accept that you have said that, in your consideration of the Hansard, your earlier ruling was consistent with the new ruling that you have brought in. But the simple question is whether, in your opinion, the question—in hindsight—was within the scope of the Standing Orders or outside it.
No. It was consistent with the ruling, and, as I have said on supplementary questions, it is not for me to judge. The Prime Minister in responding said it was not within her ministerial responsibility, and that is exactly the position I have taken in the ruling. On supplementary questions, that response is perfectly proper, because I cannot always judge what staff are doing—neither could any Speaker. It is for the Minister, of course—that is consistent with the Standing Orders—to challenge whether there is any ministerial responsibility. That is precisely what I did at the time, and I have now given you a rather full explanation as to why.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service, and, therefore, for the very considerable amount of funds that the Parliamentary Service has available to it, are you comfortable that someone who is not employed by the Parliamentary Service apparently has full control of the Labour Parliamentary Service fund?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
The Standing Orders are quite clear: oral questions, whether by way of point of order or in another form, cannot be put to the Speaker in relation to the Parliamentary Service. Only written questions can be put in that way.
Thank you. Yes, the member is fully aware of that. It is a matter to be raised at the Parliamentary Service Commission, whose next meeting will be held next Wednesday.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that you have given a very detailed ruling, and we have not all had a chance to study it carefully yet, but I seek a point of clarification relating to your comments regarding Speaker’s ruling 141/3, which was made by Mr Speaker Burke in respect of Ministers and their relationship to State-owned enterprises. You indicated in the text of your ruling that a Minister had the responsibility to challenge the validity of any charge made. Can I seek from you, Madam Speaker, some guidance as to what you envisaged would happen if a question was posed regarding the activities of a staff member who was not an employee of Ministerial Services, and the Minister then responded by saying that it was not actually within his or her responsibility because that person did not work for Ministerial Services. Does your ruling mean that at that point the House is obliged to accept the validity of that answer, and subject it to challenge through the normal ways, or is there to be a further process of scrutiny to determine whether in fact that answer applies? I suspect that the circumstances behind Speaker’s ruling 141/3 in its application to State-owned enterprises were a little different from the circumstances of the ruling you have given.