Speaker Gerry Brownlee joins MPs in a waiata after Parliament's obituaries for fallen Te Pāti Māori MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Parliament's Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, is considering a major rewrite of the rules for Question Time, potentially the first major reworking since the 1980s.
"The current format for questions" Brownlee has told the House, "was devised in the Parliament between 1981 and 1984 and came into effect in 1984. So it's quite some time - 40 years, effectively, since this particular format was reviewed."
Specifically the Speaker indicated he wants the Standing Orders Committee (which proposes changes to Parliament's own rules), to consider levelling the playing field by allowing questioners to contextualise their questions.
"If you think about how our Question Time works, it is largely an unequal competition because the concise nature of questions required by the questioner is not matched in all cases by the answer that might come ... I think it is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee should consider."
The problem of Question Time
Question Time is a great idea which very occasionally shows glimpses of its potential. Usually, it is a frustrating, cacophonous exercise in political futility.
Theoretically, it should be a pinnacle of parliamentary sovereignty-when governments acknowledge the primacy of Parliament and bow to its oversight; and oppositions focus on governance, not political wins.
The rules portray tight, searching questions to ministers about their responsibilities, and full, honest answers in return. The rules are pretty specific, but ineffective. Arguably they have been eroded by 40 years of accreting interpretation.
As an example, one rule said "an answer ... must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest."
However, presumably in order to prevent avoidant ministers from answering questions about, say, economics, with answers about cricket or the weather, a phrase specifying relevance was included - so the full first sentence of the rule said: "An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest."
Speakers have often interpreted that to allow responses that relate to the topic, but don't attempt to answer the question. In effect 'answer' has come to mean 'response', an interpretation that opens the way for obfuscation and prevarication.
Speakers have further ruled that they have no authority to enforce the rules - "The Speaker cannot force a minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given nor its content." That ruling was made in 1979, before the current rules on Question Time existed, but it is quoted often. Just last week the current Speaker said "Well, the point is he did address the question, and whether or not the question is satisfactorily addressed is not for me to judge."
It is no wonder that MPs in any opposition frequently explode with frustration or annoyance at the resulting quality of answers.
When he was Speaker, Lockwood Smith reportedly came to the conclusion that answer actually meant answer, and tried to enforce that rule. It improved Question Time markedly. Sadly, his tenure as Speaker was cut short when the then Prime Minister found him a different role, as High Commissioner to London.
The suggested change
The Speaker's suggestion was aired in response to a query from Shadow Leader of the House Kieran McAnulty about questions including context or commentary. Winston Peters had asked a patsy that included a statement, and McAnulty wanted to know whether that was now allowable.
In response, the Speaker referred to an "unequal competition" between questions and answers that he wanted reconsidered.
The current rules specify that answers must be concise (just like questions). In fact questions and answers are confined by almost identical restrictions. In practice answers are often lengthy, and while they sometimes offer context they often focus on attacking the opposition. Questions though, have always been more tightly controlled. This uneven dispensation is not confined to the current Parliament.
Brownlee looked towards parliaments outside New Zealand for alternative forms.
"If the member reflects a little bit on the structures that other parliaments have, it's not uncommon for a questioner in other parliaments to actually speak for a period of time before finally asking a question. Westminster is a perfect example, and there are many others. So I think it is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee should consider."
This may offer a fix, but equally it may just offer both sides in the contest the ability to hit below the belt rather than box cleanly. Westminster's Question Times are not exactly shining examples either.
The Ministerial Statement: A local model
The statement-the-question approach the speaker describes is similar to something that already exists in New Zealand's Parliament - the Ministerial Statement. In their current form Ministerial Statements are a relatively recent innovation. They are only used occasionally, and only if initiated by a minister or required by law.
Ministerial Statements have many fewer rules than Question Time but are always more civilised. They also tend to squeeze more useful information out of a minister than Question Time does. They are less one-sided and usually less political. That may be a factor of the typical topics.
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand notes that "Ministerial statements have been made on a wide variety of important events and developments that have engaged ministerial responsibility.
These have included terrorist attacks, natural disasters, biosecurity incidents, the release of an important government report, even "important events in other countries that have prompted a government response."
The two most recent were from Winston Peters and focused on the situation in Gaza and the bombing of Iran. The two prior were last November, and addressed the Minister of Defence tasking the military to cover the roles of striking defence force staff (these were statutorily required).
The format is simple. The minister makes a statement (the text is expected to be provided to party leaders beforehand), and an MP from each other party is given time to respond. They can use that time to make a speech, ask questions or both.
While the Q&As after a ministerial response can get testy (e.g. Winston Peters answering questions from Te Pāti Māori on Gaza), it is not common.
Exactly why Ministerial Statements are typically more productive than Question Time is a good question without an easy answer. It may be that the topics are less political, or that the minister is better prepared. Perversely, it could be that fewer rules leads to less rule-dodging. Maybe any approach would degrade over time.
The Standing Orders Committee (which the Speaker said would look at this issue), usually meets in the lead up to an election. Last Parliament the committee spent most of a year on the task, so they may begin again in the next few months. The Committee also welcomes public submissions, so begin perfecting your ideal solution. Is there such a thing as the perfect rule, or is the tougher challenge to ideally enforce whichever rule you have?
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
