Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—ConductText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSpeaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Conduct[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 15 September 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Speaker’s RulingsOral Questions—ConductMr SPEAKER: On Thursday last week I undertook to review the recording of proceedings in relation to interjections made during question time.The level of interjection during question time on Thursday was unacceptable. My office and the Clerk’s Office received numerous complaints from members of the public about the level of interjection and the difficulty they had in hearing answers to questions. This particularly applies to those members who sit near me—those to my immediate left and right—because my microphone is live at all times and picks up interjections from those members.The debating chamber is a place of robust political exchange. Interjections are permitted during question time as long as they are reasonable and not disorderly in themselves—Speaker’s ruling 187/6. Loud ongoing interjections make it very difficult for members of this House let alone the public to hear proceedings. I intend to take a tougher approach to disorderly interjections which may mean constant offenders will be asked to leave the Chamber.With regard to question No. 11 last Thursday the level of interjection was unacceptable and I acknowledge that I should have moved to give more assistance to a relatively new member. However the level of interjection was heightened by attempts to table documents that it seems were readily available to members. It is the responsibility of the member seeking to table a document to ascertain whether it is freely available and I warn all members that the risk of misleading the House in this way is serious.There have been complaints from some members about the length of replies to questions. I remind all members of the requirement to ask short relevant supplementary questions without including excessive opinion. Replies must also be concise—Standing Order 386(2)—which means not only short in terms of the number of words used but also no longer than need be in order to answer the question adequately as per Speaker’s ruling 196/5. Replies will generally be longer than the questions that they are answering. I will be the sole adjudicator of how long a question is to be answered for and that will be greatly affected by any level of interjection. If there are interjections then a Minister will certainly be given more latitude in responding to those.Finally all members need to take care when they do interject. Unparliamentary reflections on any member of this House are not acceptable and will be dealt with severely.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are just a few things out of your ruling that I would like to ask for clarification on and that is first of all around the tabling of documents where you have indicated that the onus is on the member to ascertain whether a document is publicly available before it can be tabled. I just want to get some reassurance from you that a best endeavours approach is the right way to go because it is not always possible for members to search every available website to see whether something is available. If they have received it under the Official Information Act for example it may or may not be publicly available and a best endeavours approach should I think be taken to that.The second is around interjections. I think that there is a challenge here in the ruling that you have made. One is that often long lengthy answers or provocative answers will actually elicit disorder amongst members of the House. And if you are indicating that disorder stemming from that therefore gives Ministers licence to go on even further or to be even more provocative in their answers then I think that that is actually going to lead to more disorder in the House not less.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Also on the day in question there was a very audible derogatory comment from a member directed at yourself Mr Speaker so I presume that you have considered the tapes—listened to the tapes—and will be aware of that comment. Is it your intention to leave the matter with the warning that you have given the House today or should it be taken somewhat further? I realise that if there was a privilege case to be brought it should have been brought as soon as possible but given the severity and the ridiculous nature of the comment—two almost contradictory things—it was decided certainly on our side to leave your consideration to the undertaking you had given to the House last week.Mr SPEAKER: I first address the points raised by Chris Hipkins. With regard to tabling the point that I am making in that ruling is that I will be asking the member who seeks to table whether they have done some work to ascertain public availability. There will be occasions when an answer is given that to the best of their knowledge it is not publicly available. That will be perfectly acceptable.With regard to the point about ongoing provocative answers if the member had listened I said quite clearly that I will be the sole adjudicator as to the length of answers but I am equally saying to Ministers answering questions that once the question is answered that is sufficient. To go on and then add provocative words is unhelpful it leads to disorder and I will be dealing with that more severely than in the past.With regard to the point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee I looked at the transcript of Hansard. I then watched the proceedings as available via Parliament TV. I could hear no interjection at all delivered by any member so if it was it was not available for me to adjudicate. If there was an unparliamentary remark on this occasion I think that that member may well get off very very lightly. If it is an interjection that occurs in the back half of the House it is often heard by members who sit in the back half of the House. It may not necessarily be picked up by Hansard. It may not be picked up by me in the position that I sit. But if the members study that ruling carefully the final paragraph said that there had been on occasions some very unparliamentary comments hurled across at various members. That will cease or I suspect that members who persistently do that risk being named in this House.