Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions Chamber—Audio System Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
[Volume:653;Page:2575] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Content of Answers 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377 “Contents of replies”. On 8 April 2009 you were good enough to write me a letter—and I am grateful for that—on the matter of a question that I had asked the Minister of Corrections in respect of how many Cabinet papers had been lodged by Cabinet committees the reply for which was that there were other avenues to obtain the information. You stated that you do not believe that such replies are acceptable and that you would be concerned if Ministers were to take the view that they could avoid their obligation to answer parliamentary questions simply because other processes to obtain information exist. Finally you said that Ministers have a responsibility to the House for the public offices they hold that they should take questions seriously and that they should endeavour to give informative replies. 
My simple request of you is—given that informative letter—whether you would consider writing to the Prime Minister to request that he write to his Ministers asking them to comply with your directive so that the question and answer process is treated with respect and not with the contempt that that Minister has shown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member made a perfectly fair point for a start. I do not think that the last part of that point of order was appropriate; in fact it was inappropriate. Be that as it may the honourable Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee has been working with the Business Committee on trying to resolve this issue because it is an issue of concern to the House. What has been recommended is that we allow a little bit of time to get it sorted out. There are one or two other issues around written questions as well that are not quite as straightforward as that one. I am endeavouring to make progress and if in 3 or 4 weeks’ time the member is still not happy he is welcome to raise the matter with me again. 
Questions for Oral Answer—Unauthenticated Quotations in Questions 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I also wish to raise an important point of order about your requirements of Ministers around the answering of questions. 
Yesterday you gave an additional supplementary question to Mr Mallard on the basis that I had not answered his question “Why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. Mr Mallard repeated that question five times in supplementary questions and points of order demanding an answer and that was backed up by you. But the actual New Zealand Press Association quote from me was “I never said I was acting for him.” 
My substantive point is that I think that as Speaker you need to be quite cautious in insisting that Ministers must answer unauthenticated questions as Ministers have not had the opportunity to check whether they are correct. Nor is it fair for you to require Ministers to instantly be able to determine whether such a quote is correct because I do not think there would be a member in the House who could instantly recall every comment that had been publicly reported. I did address the question in answering the substantive matter of what I and Mr Judge had discussed. Given the ground that you are pushing on this matter of Ministers answering questions I think it would be helpful if over the adjournment you gave a considered ruling in respect of this issue of unauthenticated supplementary questions. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister raises an important point and one that is worthy of consideration. It seems to me that the answer lies in Ministers’ hands in that particular kind of example because it is an important example of an unauthenticated supplementary question. But if the Minister is unsure whether the question is based upon what the Minister actually said—and we all have some sympathy with the notion that one does not remember everything one has said and one can never be sure it has been reported correctly in the second instance in any case—then the Minister is open to giving an answer that is simply along the lines of: “I’m not sure I agree with the member that that is what I said. I would prefer to check the quotation before giving the answer.” That directly answers the question without getting the Minister into trouble about whether that is in fact an accurate quotation. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that is exactly the problem that we got into yesterday. The Hon Nick Smith gave an answer. He gave effectively the only answer he could at the time knowing that the quote mentioned in the supplementary question was not quite right. Not having instant recall of the exact quote he gave an answer. It was subsequently ruled to be inadequate and an additional supplementary question was given. I think that is the problem we got into yesterday. It is quite correct for Dr Cullen to suggest that the matter is in the Minister’s hands but all that is in the Minister’s hands is the ability to give an answer. 
I accept your ruling that the idea that the word “answer” is neutral as is suggested in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 is no longer going to stand but by the same token if a Minister does address a question does give an answer that is related to the question then it surely satisfies the test that Dr Cullen puts on it. I am sure that some consideration of this matter over the coming days would be beneficial. As you are going through the exercise of requiring Parliament to be more accountable this matter is something you might like to consider as well. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to raise briefly two points. The first I think was touched on by Dr Cullen. Following advice from I think you and me the Minister actually got it right in the end and answered in a way that was appropriate. The second point that I would make is to make it absolutely clear that I was quoting directly from the report of the New Zealand Press Association. I did not ever indicate that it was a quote from Dr Smith. I quoted directly from the report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members thank you. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a perfectly fair point of order. In fact yesterday members will recollect that I was troubled by that very issue of validation of alleged quotes in supplementary questions where there is no opportunity to validate them. However at the same time—and I am very happy to give it further thought—it is certainly a worthwhile point. The point Dr Cullen makes is also a very valid point—that is the Minister does have the last say. The Minister can easily say—and it is a perfectly proper answer—“I cannot recollect saying those words; they may not be correct.” That is a perfectly valid answer. 
The dilemma I get into is when the quote is totally ignored in the answer. Having said that I am very happy to give the issue further reflection because my interest in Ministers being held to account properly in this House does not hinge on that particular issue and I do not want it to become a major problem. But I do take into account all the points raised by members. I think they are all useful points. 
Chamber—Audio System 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this issue now because the House is about to embark upon an adjournment. We are on the point of completing our first two sessions of the year with this new sound system and although I think it works particularly well in most cases some problems are becoming apparent during those times when there are heated exchanges across the House and a lot of noise. Because we no longer have our little earpieces it is often very difficult to hear the particular member who might be speaking. Speakers’ voices tend to get drowned out in a lot of extraneous noise. I wonder whether during the adjournment some consideration can be given either to repositioning microphones or to doing something with the technology to make it easier for us to hear. Over the weeks that this new system has been in place we have often lost the capacity to hear a Minister or a member asking or answering a question against a background of loud noise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for raising the issue. It has been my observation that what tends to make hearing difficult at this end of the Chamber is a background of noise. I often find that it is not interjections that cause problems; it is private discussions around the Chamber that get quite loud and make it difficult to hear. I do not want to pursue the issue now but if other members have the same concern as the Hon Peter Dunne they should please raise them with my office. If there is a major concern we will investigate it further. 
Resignation—Member for Mt Albert 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday we heard a valedictory speech from the member for Mt Albert. The House is now going into a 2-week adjournment. Could you help the House by telling us whether you have received a letter of resignation from that member; if so what date does it take effect? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a very interesting situation whereby the Speaker is required to answer the question. Let me be cautious in case I am not aware of a letter having been received. I will just consult a little which Ministers are not allowed to do so I do seek privilege here. Unlike the situation with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen from whom I have received a letter as far I am aware—and I stress “as far as I am aware” because something may be in transit between the relevant member’s office and my office—I have not received a letter from the Rt Hon Helen Clark so I do not know exactly from which date her resignation might be effective. I trust that the honourable member will remedy that situation because I do expect to receive a letter.