Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Principles for Intervention 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Principles for Intervention 
[Volume:646;Page:15783] 
Thursday 17 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members on Tuesday Gerry Brownlee raised with me the question of ministerial responsibility following a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice that asked her to confirm whether Ministers had attended a Labour Party workshop and about the actions of the Labour Party. The supplementary question was ruled out of order. The Minister of Justice has no responsibility for the actions of other Ministers outside her own portfolio responsibilities. She cannot be asked to confirm something for which she is not responsible. The Minister of Justice is not responsible for the actions of the Labour Party. Ministers are answerable only for the matters that fall within their portfolio responsibility. There is no responsibility for party matters and that goes for all parties. That is clear in several Speakers’ rulings. 
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Principles for Intervention 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I indicated that I would review an exchange in the House during question time to which a member took exception and which led to further disorderly exchanges and other members also taking exception. The Rt Hon Winston Peters asked a supplementary question of the Minister of Immigration concerning reports on Canadian immigration policy. There was nothing extraordinary in this but at the end of the question he added a throwaway comment “which Pansy Wong knows all about”. Ms Wong took exception to this remark. Questions have been raised about the legality of the policies to which the supplementary question referred. Veiled references to something dishonourable are not in order; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 51/4. On that basis and taking into account the disorder that arose I asked Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise which he did. This should have been the end of the matter. 
I now want to make clear to members how I propose to deal with personal reflections under Standing Order 116 and with offensive and disorderly words under Standing Order 115. I say to members that this is a long ruling and it will be available. Members will have an opportunity to read it and then if they wish to ask questions. I suggest they do so when we return. 
Where a personal reflection is made the Speaker will intervene if it is offensive to the dignity of the House as a whole—for example an accusation of lying or racism; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 41/3. The member against whom a personal reflection is made may raise the matter with the Speaker. If the member is not present then that is too bad; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 19/3. The Speaker will intervene to protect the member under Speaker’s ruling 41/6 if the reflection attributes something dishonourable to the member or is strongly undesirable insulting or offensive. There are several Speakers’ rulings; I refer to Speakers’ rulings 38/2 and 38/4. In judging the matter the Speaker will also take into account the circumstances—the state of order in the House at the time. If the personal reflection will led to disorder it will be ruled out of order. 
Standing Order 115 requires the Speaker to intervene where offensive or disorderly words are used. Again the test for the Speaker intervening is the state of order in the House at the time; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 50/6. If the Speaker does not intervene members may test a particular remark with the Speaker but contestable words used robustly in debate will not necessarily be ruled out of order. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 39/4. 
A member is required to withdraw an unparliamentary remark because it is the House that is affronted; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 52/2. Whether a word is unparliamentary or not does not depend just on exception being taken by members to its use. The individual reactions of members are not quite irrelevant but they are not a reason for the withdrawal of the comment in themselves. 
The problem that the Speaker faces is that members instead of taking a call to debate contestable remarks made by other members are appealing to the Speaker on points of order. This may be a consequence of time-limited debates and party allocations of the calls but the Speaker should not be drawn into deciding on what are essentially disagreements between members about issues of debate. 
Similarly in question time members instead of using supplementary questions to clarify or elucidate Ministers’ replies are appealing to the Speaker. It is not the Speaker’s role to judge the quality of the replies according to Speaker’s ruling 154/3. A point of order must concern a matter of order upon which the Speaker can rule; I refer to Speaker’s ruling 19/1. Continually raising matters of debate or the quality of answers in the guise of points of order may itself be disorderly as is set out in of Speaker’s ruling 20/1. 
As I said to members I will make a copy of this ruling available to members for their consideration.