Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
[Volume:653;Page:2355] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the proceedings. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 377(1) in respect of the content of replies to written questions. I do it knowing that it would be your wish that it was discussed with you prior to my raising it in the House and I believe that discussions have occurred with representatives outside about replies to written questions. 
The point is simply that on 19 March written question No. 1434 asked of the Minister of Police: “What papers has she prepared for Cabinet or Cabinet Committees?”. She gave a precise and correct answer which was: “I have not prepared any papers for cabinet or cabinet committees.” There is no problem there. On the same day I lodged written question No. 1409 to the same Minister but in her capacity as Minister of Corrections. It was the same question. The answer came back: “There are other avenues the Member can use to source this information.” 
My query is simply—and I would be grateful Mr Speaker if you could consider it—that there does not appear to be any inconsistency with the public interest as per Standing Order 377(1) in providing a reply on the number of Cabinet papers submitted. The Minister in her capacity as Minister of Police did that very well saying there were none. It is completely inconceivable that a member in answer to the same question but addressed to a different portfolio would be told to go and get the information. Really it seems to be trifling with the Standing Orders. Mr Speaker I simply seek your advice either now or after you have considered the matter as to the quality of the answer. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A lot of things in this House develop by way of convention. Those conventions are built up over a period of time. Upon becoming the Government the new National Government looked at the convention used by the previous Government in answering written questions. What did we find? A lot of the questions that Opposition members are asking are questions that we used to ask. Using the conventions of this House a reply similar to a reply provided earlier by the previous Government was supplied in this case. I suggest that Mr Cosgrove use some of the exceptional amount of time he now has on his hands to pursue those other avenues. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further advice on this matter. It is a valid point of order that the member has raised because the Standing Order does require questions to be answered if that is in the public interest. I do not want to get into a debate on it right now; I will look into the matter to see whether there is any reason why. I note the point the Hon Gerry Brownlee has made in that there are some traditions; even the Ombudsman has had to be brought in to try to acquire information. However times are changing and I want to make sure that information is made available in an appropriate manner. I want to look into it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I use a point of order to indicate to the House that there was a discussion about this matter at the Business Committee and I have undertaken on behalf of the National Government and Ministers to ensure that we do comply with the Standing Orders as far as possible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that point. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Quite clearly the Department of Corrections was simply using the same format that it did under Phil Goff. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: We have had a similar problem and I seek your assistance. For example we asked for the titles and dates of reports given to the Minister of Health by the Food Safety Authority and we were told that that information was not available and that the Minister would not bother to tell us what reports had been given to her. To us that seems totally unacceptable—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe will respect the silence while Dr Russel Norman is making a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The same applies to the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is the House that those members are showing disrespect to. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: It seems to us completely unacceptable that we should not be able even to find out what reports the Minister has received from a Government agency. That seems to me to breach Standing Order 377. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Colleagues I do not believe there is any need to take this matter any further. The point the Hon Gerry Brownlee raised is perfectly correct; the matter has been raised at the Business Committee. I indicated that I view this matter seriously. What the Hon Gerry Brownlee said is absolutely true: a practice built up over the years in this place whereby information was not available in that manner and even under the Official Information Act it was difficult to extract that information. However I want to make sure that the Standing Orders for questions are complied with in an appropriate manner and that is why as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has indicated the matter is being investigated to see whether we can resolve it. I do not think there is any point in our taking the issue further in the House today because we will see whether we can resolve it to the satisfaction of all members. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would request that you consult some of the parliamentary records more carefully. My colleague by my side and I both received regular requests for lists of reports that we had received and we supplied those by way of written answer. A number of the written answers that I have seen come from Ministers recently are quite novel and actually go back rather to the Max Bradford precedent of denying answers on the ground that they might cost money to produce. We are not here to simply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House does not need to take time on this issue right now. The matter will be resolved. I undertake to the House that the matter will be resolved in the interests of as far as possible all members. The matter is being taken seriously—I can assure the honourable member of that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise another issue with you based on the Minister’s intervention. She said—and I ask whether this is acceptable to avoid answering a question—that the department I think she said uses some sort of template. My understanding from being a Minister— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I didn’t say that! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Can I be heard in silence? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am listening to the member. The point of order is getting marginal. That is why I think he risks interjection. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I have got only half a sentence out. All Ministers must sign questions and presumably they read them. Is it enough now for a Minister to say: “Well the department wrote it. I did not read it but I signed it.” and therefore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not an appropriate point of order..