Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before we get to questions I want to raise with you a point of order that goes to Speakers’ rulings 151/2 and 151/5-6 and to your ruling on 22 May which has not yet made it into the green book. 
Mr Speaker you have given Opposition members in particular some good advice over a period of time regarding making questions specific and clear if we expect Ministers to be prepared to answer them. This morning the Labour Opposition lodged a question to the Prime Minister that asked whether he stood by his statements that he and his Ministers had made in relation to the Reading Recovery question—that is whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement. That goes to what is in the Prime Minister’s mind and his opinion. Speaker’s ruling 151/2 does make it clear that there is an ability to transfer as we all know but I raised with you through your office the question of whether Speakers’ ruling 151/5 might apply in this case as to whether it was possible for another Minister to indicate what was in the Prime Minister’s mind and who has responsibility for that. I will get back to that point in a second. 
The next draft of the question that came back from the Government—it was a proposal to shift it to the Minister of Education—asked whether she stands by her statements and those of the Prime Minister. That is clearly a very different question. It is not a question about whether the Prime Minister stood by his statements; it is a question as to whether that Minister stood by hers and agreed with the Prime Minister which is quite different. I think we would all accept that no junior Minister could be responsible for what is in the Prime Minister’s mind. It then moved along to whether she had been informed whether the Prime Minister stands by his statements in relation to this and that is the question that appears on the Order Paper. 
Mr Speaker the point that I would like to take you back to is your ruling on 22 May where I think you gave some very good advice to I think Dr Norman on that particular occasion. You said in the case of a question to the Prime Minister that had the member simply asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by his statement with regard to asset sales etc. and then stopped the question the member’s point would have had merit. We took on your advice from that. We did not ask about ministry advice we did not ask about any other related matters and we submitted a question in that format because we thought that at that point it would not be possible—it is a direct question. Obviously it is a matter of public knowledge that the Prime Minister is not here but we have an Acting Prime Minister. It is our view that it becomes a farce if this Parliament—if Opposition members of this Parliament—cannot ask the Prime Minister whether he stands by his statements made about a particular issue in the very recent past. That is why I indicated to the Clerk’s Office for you that I thought that this could well be a case for Speaker’s ruling 151/5 because we are getting to the point where it becomes almost impossible to hold the Government to account to hold the Prime Minister to account for what he says if in fact questions are transferred in this way. I can accept that in a lot of areas it can be appropriate to transfer them but my submission to you Mr Speaker is that it is not possible for any other Minister to be responsible for what is in the Prime Minister’s mind and therefore this goes to the type of question for which transfer should not be allowed.