King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:10983] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 My apologies Madam Speaker. I thought— 
Hon Bill English 
: Oh! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I thought this was a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the Minister is right. There will be no further interruptions during a point of order. The member raised a matter; the Minister was trying to be helpful. We will hear the answer in silence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: My apologies. I thought the member had asked me when Mark Prebble had remembered that Hugh Logan had mentioned it to him. That was on 29 July. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member’s original point of order was not a point of order. It was in fact an observation and it is a debating matter. It is not actually a point of order. However I let it go for the sake of obtaining clarification for the House. That has been given. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was extremely specific and it was asked of the Minister twice: on which date did she know? It may be that one can get up and give the sort of answer that skates around it but that is deliberately misleading the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is again making a debating point not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a question of order because as you know Madam Speaker the Opposition is limited to a certain number of supplementary questions. It would clearly be unacceptable that those supplementary questions are used up by Ministers giving misleading answers in order to avoid actually answering questions. As my colleague has pointed out we have had to use two supplementary questions to ask that particular question quite definitively. It was clearly stated and unambiguous; there was no doubt as to what it was about. The Minister has now created a situation where by her having given a misleading answer we lose the opportunity because we are getting through our supplementary questions to get her to answer the question that she was asked and still has not answered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. I would point out also that when the Minister was attempting to answer that question the first time there was an interruption. She then indicated that she wanted to give an accurate answer and therefore she would table it later. Then when the question was asked again she gave an answer. When it was then questioned as not being an accurate answer she gave an explanation which is why I allowed that explanation to be given even though it was not a point of order. So I think we are back at square one. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister’s explanation was that although I asked her twice very very clearly about when she knew she thought somehow that I wanted to know when Dr Prebble said that he knew. I do not know how one can get that out of a simple question like that. This Minister is avoiding answering an important question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will say this once more. The point the member raises is of course a point of debate or of discussion. Certainly the member is entitled to criticise and comment but it is not a point of order. That is the point I am making. I have been tolerant until we had clarification for the House but the House has been interrupted on matters that are not valid points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can one have any order in this House if when a question is asked about a Minister’s own involvement in something that Minister turns round and says he or she is giving an answer about someone else’s involvement? If Ministers are to treat question time like that then we will have an enormous amount of disorder simply because there is an entitlement for members to have their questions answered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member himself is in danger of creating disorder. The matter has in fact been clarified and even though I have ruled that it was not a point of order I did enable the Minister to clarify the point that the member has raised. We shall now move on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but if this is the same point of order then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. I have ruled on this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It will be your judgment Madam Speaker as to whether it is the same point of order. Have you now ruled that if we ask a very specific question and a Minister chooses to hear that in a way that does not relate at all to that question and chooses to give an answer that makes the Minister herself look quite ridiculous we are supposed to just sit here and accept that? What is the point in having question time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the point I have made Mr Brownlee—and I will do this for the very last time—is that I have said that it was not a point of order. It was not a point of order. It was a matter of obvious importance however which is why I enabled the Minister to respond to it for the information of the House.