McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee Gerry; Bishop ChrisQuestion No. 6—HousingHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): A point of order sir. Thank you very much. This question was originally submitted to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) and was transferred to the Minister of Housing. Now we absolutely accept that that is the right of the Government to do so but when looking at Speakers' rulings it's our position that in this instance it should not have been allowed to be. The question as originally submitted was Does he stand by his statement"—SPEAKER: No no. Look you've set it up—[Interruption] No you're trying to make a case that's already been made in the Clerk's office and I have agreed that the transfer is quite reasonable.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well speaking to that you have asked us on a couple of occasions now to come to you with points of orders quoting Speakers' rulings. I'd like the opportunity to do that.SPEAKER: Well you're welcome but it won't be now. You can come and see me later. Just go ahead with the question.Hon Kieran McAnulty: We're not asking.SPEAKER: Not asking the question? Fair enough. Question No. 7 in the name of Suze Redmayne.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Point of order. I seek leave to read out the question from the Hon Kieran McAnulty to myself so I can answer this very important question about the Government's outstanding record of getting a thousand kids out of emergency housing motels and into homes.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that point of order—SPEAKER: It doesn't particularly help order—he's sought leave actually. I've got to put leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Hon Members: Yes.SPEAKER: OK.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker I respect that. I do feel though—Hon Nicola Willis: What a wimp.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —that by not having—I've just been called a wimp.SPEAKER: OK that sort of across the House stuff has got to stop. It's no good people coming moaning to me about the way people are being spoken to if they are then adding to it during the proceedings.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Sir I do believe with respect that if I was given the opportunity to point out Speakers' rulings and why in this instance I believe an error has been made then disorderly conduct like that would have been avoided.SPEAKER: Yes I know. But you could also argue that given that there is a process before a question ever gets here and there is a decision made about the validity of the transfer that you were actually questioning the decision made by the Chair through the Clerk's office earlier.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I accept that. So I thought about this carefully and I'd like to think that in my interactions with you you consider that we do so in a respectful manner. But in this instance there are two Speakers' rulings which give clear criteria on which a question that has been transferred could be disallowed and it is our genuine position that in this instance that criteria has been met. Having the opportunity to put that to you for your consideration given that it is the House that as a result of this decision has not got the opportunity to ask the Minister who made the statement whether he stands by that I'm simply requesting that I be able to make that case.SPEAKER: Well I tell you what. We'll save a whole lot of mucking around and rumptying. If you can do it relatively quickly that would be helpful.Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Certainly I'll do my best sir. Thank you for the opportunity. Speakers' rulings 171/5(1) make it clear—and this is not in dispute—that a Government has the right to transfer a question. However not in any way that it obstructs the answer. When the question intended to ask a Minister to stand by a statement that he had made and then that be transferred there is no possible way that another Minister can answer that question. I accept however that the second leg does ask around the issue of funding for houses. However the answer to that is contingent on the answer to the first part of the question. It says "[and] if so" then carries on. Now Speakers' rulings 172/1(1) again make it clear that it is the Government's right and that is not in dispute. However it does say that if the Minister being questioned "could be the only person who had particular information and the question was transferred to make it not possible to obtain that information then I would have real concerns." There's no possible way that another Minister could answer the question that was posed.It does go on to the second point: "Opinions about whether people stand by certain statements are hardly matters that reach … [the disallowing of the transfer]". I accept that. But the question was not asking the opinion of a certain statement. It was asking the Minister to stand by his own statement and in fact by the Clerk's office rewriting it so that it became relevant to the transferred Minister it is now asking for the opinion of that Minister on a certain statement. So there's a contradiction there and that's why on that basis I believe the wrong judgment has been made here.SPEAKER: Well thank you for letting me know that the wrong judgment has been made—Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. SPEAKER: Yes just a minute and I'll come to you. Yeah the Hon Chris Bishop. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Well the Government has the right to transfer questions to whoever they see fit. We have done that. SPEAKER: That's not being disputed. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The reason we have done this—as Mr McAnulty even pointed out in his point of order—is that the second part of the question is what I am responsible for as the Minister of Housing. So that is why we have chosen to transfer it. If the member had asked the Hon Tama Potaka as Associate Minister "Does he stand by his statement that he made as the Associate Minister"—that's not in dispute—and left it there well that's fine. It wouldn't have been transferred highly likely. But that's not what he asked. He asked two completely separate—related but separate—issues in the one question. The Government felt it best that I answered that question; therefore we've transferred it. I'm very happy to answer the question and account for it. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Speaking to that point of order—SPEAKER: OK this is going on a bit but this is the last comment I'll take on it. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That again was acknowledged but the point is that the way the question was asked in the middle it says "[and] if so". If the second part of the question was asked at the start I would not have any case. But the second part of the question cannot be answered unless the first part of the question is answered first. It is: "If the Minister agrees or stands by that statement then what does he think about this?" He can't answer the second part without giving a response to the first and there's no possible way that Minister Bishop can answer that question when it's asking Minister Potaka if he stands by a statement that Minister Potaka made himself. SPEAKER: Well only in so much as an Associate Minister speaks for the Minister in fact. Look the general principle here is that if the House is unimpeded in getting an answer then the transfer should be allowed. It would only be if there was very specific knowledge—and that's the case you're making—but the Clerk's Office before they come to talk to me about these things do have to assess also what is the substance of the question. The substance of the question is clearly the second part so that's why the transfer was allowed. But I'll tell you what: I'm very keen on there being some degree of harmony around all these things so rather than you going ahead today why don't you keep this question up your sleeve and have an extra one tomorrow. Hon Chris Bishop: No sorry—point of order. SPEAKER: No there's no point of order here—that's a ruling. That's right. Hon Chris Bishop: But because he can't be bothered asking me the question—SPEAKER: No Mr Bishop—Mr Bishop. Hon Chris Bishop: —you're going to give him a freebie tomorrow. SPEAKER: Mr Bishop this is a point of disorder if you want my view on it. Hon Chris Bishop: Well why do they get a freebie because he can't be bothered asking a question? SPEAKER: Mr Bishop I've made a ruling and I'm not changing it. We'll come now to question No. 7—Suze Redmayne. Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order. I just simply wish to withdraw—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Sorry points of order are heard in silence. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I simply wish to withdraw and apologise for my earlier interjection. SPEAKER: Thank you."