Lees-Galloway Iain: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Member in charge of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill: Why did she draft the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill?CARMEL SEPULONI (Member in charge of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill):I drafted this bill because I belong to a political party Labour that believes in creating viable pathways for New Zealanders off benefits and into work. This bill strikes at the heart of what Labour stands for and that is jobs that is jobs that is jobs.Iain Lees-Galloway: What evidence has she seen that her bill is necessary?CARMEL SEPULONI: The major evidence can be seen in the Government’s employment programmes that are failing. The number of people participating in the Ministry of Social Development’s employment programmes has dropped by 60 percent since 2011-12. The number of people returning to a main benefit 8 weeks after the end of employment contracts has increased from 15 to 23 percent. For the year ending September 2015 less than half of job seeker benefits were cancelled for the reason being obtained work—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answers to these questions are to be brief.CARMEL SEPULONI: OK I will just wrap it up.Mr SPEAKER: No no the member has had her opportunity to wrap it up.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I went back—because I suspected this issue might well come up—and I timed the average length of a ministerial answer to a—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not interested at all in this point of order. When we have questions to members there are quite different standards for those compared with questions to Ministers. This is not a chance for a party political broadcast. I listened to the answer for quite long enough. The answer has been addressed. That is the end of the matter.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member—Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order. I am delighted to hear it.Chris Hipkins: I wonder whether you could point out which of the Standing Orders you are referring to in making that ruling.Mr SPEAKER: No I cannot but I will come to the member. [Interruption] Order! When I am on my feet the member is to be silent. I will come back and refer him to Speakers’ rulings that will help. I will come back to the member with that.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just again clarify: is this a—Hon David Parker: I am trying to assist—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance. I need to know whether—[Interruption] Order! The member will also resume his seat. If the member attempts to relitigate what we have just covered I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber for the rest of the afternoon. If he wants to raise a fresh point of order I am only too happy to hear it.Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could provide clarification as to whether there is a difference between members when there is a question to members asking a question about a bill that is before the House which I would have thought is an issue on which this House would want substantive answers and other procedural matters. These are questions that go—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating exactly where we have been and that explanation has already—the member might find it amusing; I do not think it is. I have already taken time. If the member goes back and has a look at previous comments I have made I see quite a substantial difference between questions to Ministers and questions such as this which are to members who have legislation about to come to the floor of this House. I accept that they are allowed under the Standing Orders. I have said in this House before that I think the value of that exercise is questionable. Question No. 2 Sue—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I again just clarify. It is—Chris Hipkins: It is just to do with the very last part of your ruling Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No that is relitigating. If the member wants to relitigate it I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. But if he wants to—Chris Hipkins: Well you apply the Standing Orders as they exist now.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made a decision. If the member wants to relitigate it he can certainly do so but I will be asking him to leave the Chamber. I have made a decision; the member does not have to agree with my decision but he must accept it. Does the member wish to raise a point of order?Chris Hipkins: No point.