Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers Maori Language—Interpretation Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
[Volume:615;Page:11495] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Answers 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I start on questions I want to refer to two matters that I said I would rule on this week. Last week the Hon Peter Dunne asked me to reflect on points of order inviting the Speaker to rule on whether Ministers have answered questions. I have given a number of rulings on that subject during my term in office including detailed rulings on 12 September 2001 and 1 May 2003. Summaries of those rulings are contained in the latest edition of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I do not intend to go over them in detail today. I merely wish to emphasise that the Speaker is not the judge of whether a Minister answers a question correctly or adequately. That is a matter for political debate and criticism. 
I reiterate what I said on 12 September 2001 in  
Hansard 
 Vol. 595 at page 11634: “Any answer given by a Minister must address the question asked. That means that the answer must be a direct response to the question; it cannot be on an unrelated matter that it suits the Minister to introduce. But it does not mean that the answer will be satisfactory to the questioner or that it will actually answer the question. Whether it does or not will always be a matter of opinion and the Speaker cannot force a Minister to give a reply that is satisfactory to everyone.” 
Maori Language—Interpretation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During question No. 11 on 26 February which was last Thursday a number of points arose out of the interpretation of a reply by the Minister of Maori Affairs and I undertook to respond to them. The Hon Roger Sowry raised the question of whether a member whose speech has been incorrectly interpreted is under an obligation to correct that interpretation. If the member gives his or her own interpretation then the answer is yes. In the same way that any member who gives wrong information to the House is under an obligation to clear the matter up as soon as the error is appreciated—Speaker’s ruling 163/6—a member who gives an incorrect interpretation must do so too but where the interpretation is given by an interpreter I cannot hold that any such onus falls on the member. As Speaker’s ruling 34/3 makes plain members do not own the interpretations of their speeches and are not responsible for them. I would hope however that members would on a point of order clear up any misunderstanding arising out of an interpretation of a speech. 
A further point was raised as to whether when the Minister’s speech was translated for inclusion in  
Hansard 
 I would come back to the House if it revealed any unparliamentary language. There was unparliamentary language used—the Minister addressed another member in the second person—but the Minister cleared this up himself by a personal explanation later in the day. That matter is now closed. 
I wish to add some general remarks about interpretation. As Speakers’ rulings 34/4 and 34/5 make clear an interpretation especially one given off the cuff is always liable to be rough and ready. Members must make allowance for that. We must appreciate too that the process of interpretation is not merely a matter of transliterating word for word from one language into another. Especially with languages as different in their origins as English and Maori this is not possible. I am satisfied that the interpretation given last week did convey the broad sense of what the Minister said. 
The one deficiency was a peculiarly parliamentary point—the personal pronoun the Minister used was not conveyed. In most settings whether someone is speaking in the second person or the third person is unimportant; in this Chamber it can be critical. The Clerk has spoken to the interpreters about the particular parliamentary context in which an interpretation is given and attention will be paid to that in the future. If members would like a copy of either ruling the Clerk will provide it to them. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was also the matter raised yesterday by the Hon Bill English. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still coming back on that one. I had quite a bit to do on those two today. I will come back on that one. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to the ruling you have just given to the House but also to Speaker’s ruling 34/5 which I note is also a ruling of yours made in 2002. The difficulty as I see it is this: where a member responds in Maori as a member certainly might particularly a Minister replying to a question and the member breaches the Standing Orders in so doing—and the rest of the House is not aware of that and the interpreter does not make it clear in his interpretation that the Standing Orders have been breached—then as the ruling stands now we have an obligation to take a point of order immediately. But it might be some time before we learn of the breach of the Standing Orders that was not contained in the interpreter’s translation. What remedy and recourse do we have to raise that point of order at a later time when under normal rulings it would be regarded as out of time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Firstly in relation to that last sentence of course a member would be able to do so at a later time because that is an exceptional circumstance. I referred to Speaker’s ruling 34/5 in my ruling; the other matter is addressed in that ruling. 
Points of Order—Minister’s Answers 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a quick issue that arises from your ruling on the point of order I raised with you. I want to seek some clarification. I am grateful for your ruling but if I look at Speaker’s ruling 145/7 in your name I see that it states: “Any answer must address the question asked. The answer must be a direct response;” etc. and then I contrast that with Speaker’s ruling 144/3: “It is not obligatory on a Minister to answer a question.” and Speaker’s ruling 144/4: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question …”. I want to be clear in my mind that you are saying that in addressing a question a Minister has to give a response—but you as Speaker have no responsibility for the quality of that response—and the response somehow has to address the question itself despite the fact that those other rulings say there is no obligation on a Minister to actually answer the question. I think that that is at the heart of a lot of the current disputes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member because it is a useful point of order. Those two instances I am advised were when the Minister said: “No I will not answer.” It was just: “No I will not answer.” and that was way back in 1968 and 1972 I think. The ruling I gave refers to the fact that a Minister must address the question. The answer might not be satisfactory to the person who asked the question but that answer has to be given.