for presentation. Report of the Health Committee on the petition of
Samantha Lynnock. We now come
to Oral Questions. Before I call
question One, I wish to make two
rulings. I have
reviewed some replies to written
questions provided recently. The
Minister for Economic Development has
responded to a series of questions saying that
they are out of order under Standing
Order 380. That is not an answer to
the question. It
is not for ministers to rule things out of
and admissibility. If it appears to a minister that a question is
not an order, then the proper course is to
return it to the Clerk's office,
or to enter into a discussion with
the Clerk's office. I have also seen
written questions
written questions asking what meetings a minister has attended
between
meetings a minister has attended
the question. If a minister...Ject If a minister is not clear what a
question means, he or she
could contact the member who is
asked the question in order to seek
clarification. A
clarification. A minister's office should be able to
receive clarification and provide a reply
to the question
the question within six working days. I remind ministers of their
duty to the House, and through
the House, to the country to account for
the public offices they
hold. Ministers should give
informative replies to the
questions they're asked where it is consistent with
the public interest to do so.
Speaker's rulings 1665 and 1775.
The questions that I
have mentioned today will be returned
to ministers, and I would expect that they
would be replied to urgently. I will
continue to review answers to
written questions periodically to
ensure questions
ensure questions are being addressed. Second point
the Rt Hon David Carter raised with me the issue of retrospective
rulings on matters of order. I've
reflected on that matter and on
methods of disagreeing with the
ruling of the Chair. Earlier
this year, the Standing
Orders Committee considered the matter of
retrospective rulings. An extract
from the committee's report appears
as Speaker's ruling
from the committee's report appears
in the light of the matters raised, it is worth referring to
the full text of
it is worth referring to the full
prohibition on raising points of order in the House about events that
have passed. This helps ensure that
points of order address matters
that are relevant to the maintenance of
order at that point in time,
and are not themselves used to disrupt the
order of the House. This
prohibition on retrospective points of
order is appropriate, and we
encourage speakers to continue
not to entertain them. We
consider, however, that the Speaker is able
to deal retrospectively in the
House with matters of order if the Speaker
considers it is important and in
the House's interest to do so. The
Speaker's primary task is to preside
over the effective conduct
of proceedings.
over the effective conduct of
have a continued impact on the House's ability
House's ability to deal with its business, the Speaker can address
the matter. Members should raise
such issues privately with
the Speaker, outside the House. This
ensures that the prohibition on
retrospective points of order
remains undisturbed, and
members can discuss their concerns with the
Speaker away from the charged
atmosphere of the Chamber. There
is still, of course, a strong
presumption that
presumption that points of order will be raised immediately. As
always, rulings of the Speaker
are final. A retrospective ruling
on a matter of order does not reopen the
committee intended that the Speaker could, on his or her initiative,
deal with retrospective
matters of order. It did
not empower members to raise such matters on the floor of
the House and, in fact, required
them to be raised privately with
the Speaker. While in the event that led
to the
Speaker. While in the event that led
event that led to the change involved a comment that
the Speaker had not heard, the report did
not restrict members' rights
to raise a variety of matters relating to the
order of the House and the rights of
members. The presumption remains
that a point of order must be raised
at once, and cannot be raised by a
member at a later time. Speaker's
rulings 23 and 24. Speakers
from Guinness through to Carter
have ruled that, when a
matter has been the subject of a decision by
the Chair, that decision is final and
comment on it
is not allowed. Members have a right, and a duty, to
raise points of order where they
feel the House is outside its
Standing Orders, but any attempt to
bring into question the Chair's
decision is out of order and is in
no way protected
by the Standing Orders. To persist in doing so
despite warning makes it
a highly disorderly procedure
challenge the ruling of a Speaker is by a direct motion on notice.
Speaker's rulings
Points of order are not intended to ask questions or
to seek clarification. They are to deal with
matters of order at the time
they are occurring in the House, or
to draw the Speaker's
attention to the fact that a member
intends to exercise a right given by
Standing Orders, such as making a
personal explanation. I thank the Rt Hon
David Carter for raising this
matter. I will circulate
this ruling immediately, and I will be available
in my office from
immediately, and I will be available
today, and again next week, if members
members require further clarification. Question No. 1.
Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
My
My question is to the Minister of Housing and Urban
My question is to the Minister
What does the briefing he received as incoming Minister say
about
about the impact KiwiBuild
about the impact
It
It states
It states that the KiwiBuild programme creates a
unique opportunity to support
transformative change in the
construction