Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
[Volume:623;Page:18467] 
Points of Order 
Question Time—Authenticity 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which is in your name. I wonder whether in your final weeks you would be prepared to consider an element of it. 
The Speaker’s ruling states: “The rules are not the same for questions and replies. Statements of fact in questions must be authenticated. There is no such rule for answers.” One can well understand why that ruling is there because the Speaker cannot possibly be responsible for the accuracy of answers. The dilemma though is that with the Speaker’s ruling standing the way it does it implies that the accuracy of questions may be more important than the accuracy of answers. I know that you would say there is a process under the Standing Orders for a privilege case to be taken should a member wilfully mislead this House. But that is a very serious process to embark upon. 
I believe that today an interesting example arose. In response to question No. 3 today the Minister involved kept referring to a survey claiming it vindicated as correct an answer he had given to this House. The questions in the survey had been tabled and were in the possession of the House. Members tried to point out to the House that what the Minister was saying was factually incorrect according to the survey he was quoting from. My concern is simply that this brings Parliament into disrepute when clearly the House has in its possession a document from which the Minister was quoting and the information the Minister continues to repeat—and I think it was repeated on two or three occasions—is absolutely inconsistent with the document in the possession of the House. I am sure you would look at it if a privilege case was taken and say that this is probably not of sufficient moment to warrant a privilege case. However in my view it does damage the integrity of this Parliament where Parliament has in its possession certain information that has been tabled and that information is clearly being totally misquoted by a Minister. Balancing that requirement for accuracy in questions with the greater responsibility for accuracy in answers would I believe be something worthy of your experienced consideration before you leave this Parliament. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that if the member looks carefully at the ruling he will see that the question has to be authenticated. That of course does not make it accurate. Often the authentication may be a newspaper story and I am sure from his vast experience in Government in the past the member will understand that on occasion what is said in newspapers about a Government is not necessarily correct but it is sufficient to authenticate the question. It does not prove it is true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising what is a good point of order and a serious one. I just say to him that the Speaker also relaxes the rules on authentication for supplementary questions if he looks at Speaker’s ruling 142/8. The Speaker’s ruling the member referred to is a consequence of the way the Standing Orders are drafted as he admits. This is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to consider if the member wishes to raise it there. I would encourage him to do so as I think he has raised an interesting point. 
Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a different point of order with you for your consideration. Yesterday I asked a series of questions of the Associate Minister of Education relating to the results of scholarship exams in secondary schools. The Minister gave a series of fairly vague answers. It became apparent after question time that the Minister had planned a press conference at 4 o’clock after question time and that he almost certainly had in his possession at question time the information that he used at the press conference. I am raising the question of what obligation the Minister has to use the information that he possesses to answer questions asked in this House. The Minister may prefer to be accountable to the media and not to the House but the information he had was directly relevant to the questions I asked the information was available to him and he did not provide any of that in answers given to the House. 
I have checked the  
Hansard 
 and the Minister was careful not to mislead the House. I mean that only in the technical sense in which this Parliament uses the term “mislead”. So he did not mislead the House but he had information that he could have used to answer questions that were asked and that is demonstrated by the amount of information he gave at the press conference about three-quarters of an hour after question time ended. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 115/4 which I made. I repeat: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.”