Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12316. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to theChairperson of the Government Administration Committee: How many submissions were received on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?Hon RUTH DYSON (Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee):Submissions on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill opened on 1 August 2012 and submissions on that bill closed on 5 October 2012. At the first meeting after this date the Government Administration Committee was advised that the bill had attracted a total of 2710 submissions. That may seem like a large number but the member in whose name the bill is sponsored indicated to the committee that her understanding was that the number was lower than it should have been—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has satisfactorily addressed the question with the answer—[Interruption ] Order!Hon RUTH DYSON: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not finished because it is not the answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: But I am inviting the member and all other members who have questions to answer today to look carefully at Standing Order 383. That question asked for the number of submissions that have been received. That number was given by the member as 2700. Am I wrong in saying that? [Interruption ] Well then I will certainly hear from the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Speaker and the reason that I am saying that is that it is a very unusual situation in relation to the number of submissions that we originally were told were received and the final answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member would concisely summarise that for the benefit of the House I would be grateful.Hon RUTH DYSON: I will try my best Mr Speaker. The member in whose name the bill is sponsored challenged that number of submissions and then went back to an umbrella organisation called 26 for Babies. As a result of those inquiries with that organisation which is set up to support the bill it was discovered that a large number of submissions that were sent through the 26 for Babies website to the committee did not actually arrive on the committee’s website. The committee resolved at a later meeting that it had been demonstrated that these submissions had been sent by the due date but had not been received through no fault of the submitters and that we would therefore accept them as being received by the due date. An investigation into the reason for that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now miles too long and I warn all other members who are going to be answering questions to adhere to the Standing Orders. Is there a supplementary question?Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I certainly accept that in this particular case that was a particularly long answer. However earlier in question time today in answer to questions put forward by Phil Twyford the Hon Dr Nick Smith put forward a very very long answer cataloguing a wide range of different variables in relation to the primary question. In fact when we raised the point of order with you suggesting that we actually just wanted the answer to the question you in fact allowed him to continue giving that answer. I just want to be sure that we are going to have a consistent standard here. I accept that Ruth Dyson’s was a long answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the member. If the member is now accusing me of being inconsistent I will take that very seriously indeed.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do have a supplementary question but in order to ask my supplementary question I need the answer to my question. It was not the answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to ask a supplementary question I will give her one further chance otherwise we are moving to the next question.Sue Moroney: What was the final number of submissions received then by the committee given her previous answer and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient supplementary question. What was the—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again I warn the member that if it is a satisfactory and fresh point of order that does not in any way—Hon Trevor Mallard: It is an absolutely new point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I will listen to it with interest.Hon Trevor Mallard: Members have the right to ask supplementary questions with two legs. That is a standard process and it applies to both these members—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need no further advice. I have received advice that supplementary questions should have only one leg. The member has asked a supplementary question. Would the Hon Ruth Dyson please answer that question.Hon RUTH DYSON: Mr Speaker I certainly will. There were no submitters out of the total who were opposed to the bill. There were seven who proposed changes or delay in the implementation of the legislation. That was 0.183 percent of the total submissions which were 126 unique submissions and 3683 form submissions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from you with relation to your last ruling. Is that only in relation to supplementary questions to members or does that apply also to supplementary questions to Ministers?Mr SPEAKER: It is a general rule. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 169/4: “A supplementary question should contain only one question.”