Points of Order — Written Questions—Availability of Material Referred to in Answers Question No. 9 to Minister 8 SeptemberText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Written Questions—Availability of Material Referred to in Answers Question No. 9 to Minister 8 September[Sitting date: 09 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderWritten Questions—Availability of Material Referred to in AnswersCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to give a considered ruling with regard to written parliamentary questions and answers to written parliamentary questions supplied from Ministers and the growing practice of Ministers to simply refer to either the annual review process or the estimates process when given questions that relate to financial performance or spending decisions by Government departments. The increasing practice of Ministers has been to simply say that this information is supplied to select committee X or whatever and to please refer to those answers.There are two things that I would like you look into with regard to that. The first is that that information is not necessarily available to all members and any member has a right to question a Minister regarding those matters of financial performance. In some cases the matter could still be before the select committee so it is not available to all members.The second of course is that it may not have even been asked for in the first place. So although extensive questioning goes on during those processes what we are finding is that some of the information asked for in written parliamentary questions has not even been asked for through the annual review or estimates processes.So those are the issues that I would like you to look into and give a considered ruling on because the written parliamentary questions process is a very important part of the Opposition’s ability to hold the Government and Government departments and agencies to account for the use of taxpayer funding.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I would point out that if information has been provided to a select committee during the annual review and the review is being conducted through the House then that information is available to all members.Secondly I think that if you are going to have a look at the way in which Ministers are answering questions I would hope that you look at the questions that are being asked. It is an important aspect of our democracy that members representing Opposition parties—or any member of Parliament—can ask written questions of Ministers but they do have to be reasonable questions. I think when they are in the nature of a fishing exercise then they are probably going to get a broader sweep of answers or an answer that gives a broader sweep of potential answers in order to make sure that the greatest amount of information is captured by the intention of the answer—therefore the referral to an annual review which of course is an extensive document with many many questions in it.Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members for their contributions. I will certainly have a very close look at the matters raised by Chris Hipkins. I will certainly come back to Chris Hipkins. If I feel it requires information coming back to the House then I will do so as well.Question No. 9 to Minister 8 SeptemberRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?RON MARK: Yes. I raised with you yesterday an issue regarding a question that was put by the Rt Hon Winston Peters to the Minister for Māori Development. It was taken on behalf of the Minister by the Hon Chris Finlayson. In giving answers to that the Hon Chris Finlayson said that the question should have been directed to the Minister for Whānau Ora. I asked you to consider that firstly the report was commissioned by the Minister for Māori Development it was released by the Minister for Māori Development and of course the Minister for Māori Development is also the Minister for Whānau Ora. You were going to deliberate on the Hansard and come back and advise the House whether or not that question could have been answered—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. No if the member would only go back again and look at Hansard he would see that my response was that I would certainly have a look at the questions and the answer. I specifically said I would not necessarily come back to the House. I did have a look at the questions and answer and I am quite comfortable that the questions were answered according to the Standing Orders. The particular problem in the question that was raised is that it was a supplementary question that arose from a very unspecific primary question: “Does the Minister stand by all his statements?” or words to that effect. Therefore the adequacy of the answer in my opinion was consistent with the Standing Orders and if the member wants to have a look at Speakers’ rulings to help him I suggest he looks at pages 198 and 199.