Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4365. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I refer the member to my response to question No. 12 yesterday. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister decide to not go into specifics yesterday because he judged it not in the public interest to do so as allowed for under Standing Order 377(1)? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister judge it not in the public interest because it may hamper some police inquiry? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is possible but also on a wider basis I do not consider it in the public interest. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If it is possible that the reason that the Prime Minister would not go into specifics yesterday was that it may hamper some police inquiry why did he tell journalists on Monday that it was “nothing of a legal nature.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because that was the correct answer. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How can it be that on the one hand a possible reason for the Prime Minister’s not disclosing the reason for his decision to sack Dr Richard Worth as Minister was that it may hamper some police inquiry and on the other hand he said to the assembled press gallery that the reason was “nothing of a legal nature.”? If it was nothing of a legal nature how could it possibly hamper the police? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a number of factors and I made that clear at the press conference on Monday. I urge the member to go and read the full transcript. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Given that the Prime Minister advised the House yesterday that he had told his Cabinet in “broad outline” of his reasons for losing confidence in Dr Richard Worth has he told his Cabinet anything substantive that he has not made public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I repeat the comment I made yesterday. I went into a broad description but not specifics. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377(1). Here is a little reminder as to what that Standing Order says. It says: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” My question was whether the Prime Minister having briefed his Cabinet on the reasons for dismissing or losing confidence in Dr Richard Worth had told his Cabinet anything substantive that he had not made public. You should note Mr Speaker that I did not ask what he had told his Cabinet but simply whether he had told his Cabinet anything substantive that was not yet public. I put it to you that he has not sought to address that question and because of the wording of the question he has no public interest reason to deny addressing it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I respect the honourable member’s important point of order but I come back to the point that only the Minister—or in this case the Prime Minister—can judge the issue of public interest. That is why the Standing Order is written that way. My assessment was that the Prime Minister answered the question given the constraints of his judgment around the public interest issue. I believe I cannot ask him to do more than that under the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to examine your ruling and previous rulings with regard to the question of public interest. My understanding from the I think two occasions that I have seen that Standing Order applied by Ministers in the past is that they have in fact elected not to give an answer or to give an answer that says that they cannot give that answer because it is not in the public interest. I have never seen that Standing Order used before to judge whether an answer addressed a question. It goes to whether an answer is to be given and whether that is in the public interest not to the quality of the answer or whether it addresses the question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think that if we were to turn to Speaker’s ruling 165/6 then the situation becomes a little clearer. The Prime Minister gave an answer to the question. This is a Speaker’s ruling from the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt. It states: “The Speaker does not judge whether ministerial replies are adequate or make political judgments on how well Ministers have responded to the House or indeed how well other members are performing. Those are matters for members themselves the press and the public generally.” The Prime Minister has made it clear. He has given an answer to Mr Hodgson as far as he can. It would seem to me that by relying on this particular Speaker’s ruling we would see an end to the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it would be advantageous to give a couple of examples of where my understanding of this Standing Order is designed to be applied. One example would be in the area of foreign affairs or defence where there is a point of conflict and New Zealand interests would be at risk either in a trade sense or a defence sense. The other occasions in the examples that we have been briefed on have been in police cases where an active police operation is occurring and it would not be appropriate for a Minister to give an answer. That Minister could not give an answer that was truthful in any of those examples where it would be in the interests of the country. Those are the sorts of areas that in my opinion and certainly in the briefings that we have had from the previous Clerks are covered by the Standing Order. It does not extend to a judgment partway through a question that answering the question properly is not in the public interest; it relates to whether the question is answered at all. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I think that anyone observing this would know that this is a question that comes down to the issue of political exchange. If we look at Speaker’s ruling 163/6 also a ruling by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt we see that he acknowledges within that ruling that there are questions that are matters of political exchange. It makes it very very clear that the Speaker cannot be put in a position of judging the adequacy of either the question or the answer. The Prime Minister has given an answer in so far as he can and is prepared to and that should be acceptable to the House.  
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I simply want to remind the Speaker that I have raised a point of order on a very narrow issue not to do with Speaker’s ruling 165/6 which is to do with the adequacy of the reply but to do with whether the Minister addressed the question. It is a narrow issue. He must seek to address the question unless there is a public interest reason for not doing so. Similarly Speaker’s ruling 163/6 is irrelevant to the point of order that I have raised. The Hon Trevor Mallard makes a very good point which is that if it is not in the public interest to give an answer then that is what we would expect to be told. In fact the Prime Minister has said in his answer to my primary question that it is not in the public interest for him to give further detail. So I changed my questioning to ask who else had that detail but I did not ask for the detail itself—because it is apparently not in the public interest. At that point I think the Minister must seek to address my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members because this is an issue that I accept is not absolutely black and white. But in fact when the Hon Trevor Mallard was recounting Speakers’ rulings or briefings on the matter he overlooked the one by Speaker Wilson just last year which is Speaker’s ruling 162/4. It actually gets into the issue of matters of public interest versus privacy as well and there are issues to be covered there. 
Let me come back to the fundamental issue that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised first about whether the public interest question should be something that prevents a Minister from answering at all or whether it can actually constrain how much of an answer the Minister gives. I think in fairness it is not an all-or-nothing thing. Whether an answer is in the public interest is not a matter where either no answer is given at all or an answer is given. It is not a zero-sum game situation. If a Minister wishes to be helpful a Minister can answer a question in so far as he or she believes he or she can do so consistent with the public interest. 
I believe that on this occasion the Prime Minister—instead of saying that he was not going to answer the honourable member’s question because it is not in the public interest—gave an answer that went as far as he believed was acceptably consistent with the public interest in his opinion. I believe as Speaker that that is inconsistent with Standing Order 377(1) and also very much consistent with previous Speakers’ rulings—in particular Speaker’s ruling 162/4. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth was he in possession or was he not in possession of substantive information that is not yet public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was in possession of information that meant I no longer had confidence in Dr Worth and at that point I believed he was not fit to be a Minister. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that neither the spirit nor the letter of Standing Order 377(1) has been met by the Prime Minister’s answer to that question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Both those senior Labour members know they cannot interject like that during a point of order. This is a difficult issue and I believe that I owe the House the courtesy and the respect of taking it seriously. I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Numerous Speakers in the past have ruled that although an answer can be sought the answer that is given may not be adequate for the purpose of satisfying the questioner’s inquiry but is perfectly adequate in terms of the Standing Orders. Numerous examples from Speaker Wilson and earlier make that abundantly clear. I do not think we are in a different situation here. The question was asked an answer was given and that answer related to the topic. The fact that the answer was not as specific as the member wanted it to be does not mean it is in any way a breach of the Standing Orders. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I offered the Prime Minister the opportunity to tell us whether he had or did not have substantive information that was not in the public arena. If he did not have it then it seems to me that the Prime Minister is entitled to tell the House that. If he did have substantive information but he did not want to tell us what it was because it was not in the public interest to do so he is absolutely entitled—absolutely entitled—to say that to the House. The truth of the matter is that he took neither of those options and I assert therefore that he did not seek endeavour try or attempt to address the question and he ought to do so. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker if you think back you will recall that the Prime Minister said he had sufficient information to lead him to have a loss of confidence in the former Minister. How more specific would he be required to be given that he had been within the Standing Orders in answering the previous lines of questioning? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The particular question on this occasion was whether the Prime Minister had information that was not in the public arena at the time he made his decision. It is absolutely the Prime Minister’s right to determine whether it is within the public interest to answer the question but I believe that it is not acceptable for him to ignore that question. I invite the honourable member to repeat his question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth was he in possession or was he not in possession of substantive information that is not yet public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was in possession of information that meant I no longer had confidence in Dr Worth. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say “ibid” in terms of the previous point of order which my colleague Pete Hodgson raised. That answer no more addressed the question than the previous answer did. In fact it was very close to being a repeat of the original answer which you ruled did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat his question. What has been made clear is that in the Prime Minister’s judgment it is not in the public interest to give further information on it. He has given as much information in his answer as he believes is consistent with the public interest and I cannot insist on any more than that. I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat his question he has made his point and the Prime Minister has answered as far as he believes he can consistent with the public interest. I think that is as far as the House can take that matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the problem we are getting to now is that you are providing an answer for the Prime Minister that he himself is not prepared to give. What you have done in your ruling is indicate that it is the Prime Minister’s view that it is not in the public interest to give further information. If that is his view then it is incumbent on him to say so. It is not incumbent on you to interpret—in fact you should not interpret—that the Prime Minister is saying that because it could well come out later that that is not the fact and effectively the Prime Minister will be hung by your ruling. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is an unacceptable attack on the integrity of the Chair and I do not think it should pass lightly. In any event let us turn to Speakers’ ruling 162/6 a ruling by Speaker Harrison that was later repeated by Speaker Arthur. It is a long-standing ruling. It has survived many many Parliaments since those two gentlemen occupied the seat in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The ruling states: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given nor its content.” Mr Speaker the Opposition is asking you to overturn that ruling and in fact to become the adjudicator in the case of those rulings which would mean that subsequent ruling 163/6 and numerous rulings on page 165 would also be overturned. I assert again that the question we are dealing with is in the nature of a political exchange as described in Speaker’s ruling 163/6. I think it is unfortunate that the Opposition is asking you to be put in a position where you are judging the quality of the answer when in fact previous Speakers have strenuously attempted to stay away from that particular position. The Prime Minister has given an answer it is a reasonable answer in all the circumstances and I think this case being in the nature of a political exchange does override any other consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard quite sufficient on the matter. The member asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question and was concerned about the answer. I accepted that his question had been a pretty straight question and had not been directly answered; that was why I allowed the member to repeat it. However when he repeated the question he got a further answer from the Prime Minister that clearly indicated the limits to which the Prime Minister felt he was able to go within the public interest. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has pointed out I cannot then judge the quality of that answer. The member asked his question it was a straight question he got the answer and he can draw his own conclusions about it. But there is no way that I as Speaker can take it a step further and start adjudicating on whether an answer was adequate. I believe that the Prime Minister gave an answer as far as he believed was consistent with the public interest and that is where the matter for today must lie. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would ask him to be sure he is not questioning my ruling. I have just ruled on the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not at all but I think the matter could be easily cleared up by the Prime Minister indicating that that was in fact what he meant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was absolutely no necessity for that whatsoever.