Shane Jones intervenes with a point of order during questions to Casey Costello (seen behind him). Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
Parliament’s Question Time is a lot like a boxing ring that sits at the centre of our system of responsible government. Every sitting day in the debating chamber, pugilists from a variety of weight classes face up against one another. In the blue corner is a government minister, in the red corner is an opposition MP seeking to bring them down, or at least keep them chastened.
The metaphor might sound brutal, but that’s Parliamentary democracy; keeping governments honest and in hand. Not letting them step outside the ring of influence that Parliament, as their master, has allowed them.
It’s never an easy fight and in many ways Parliament’s rules and precedents favour government ministers. There are so many rules about what can be asked and how; so many ways to slip away, to fend, or to counterpunch.
These bouts might be daily, but there are many rounds, lasting months. But as each match develops, opposition MPs who can find the right jabbing questions, can sometimes release a slow trickle of information that forces a minister against the ropes.
And when that happens sometimes a boxer’s second gets involved. They might help set up a few counterpunches from their own corner, or start complaining to the referee that the match is unfair.
On Tuesday, that was Shane Jones, who is a boxer from a heavier weight class. He is Deputy Leader of New Zealand First and a long time MP and political brawler,
His intervention was the Parliamentary equivalent of complaining about the other guy’s gloves, the size of the ring, the lights and the presence of camera flashes.
The intervention was evident prior to Question Time, when the Speaker rose to give a ruling.
“Members, I've had a question raised to me today about the admissibility of question No. 10, which I want to take the opportunity to clarify. Speaker's ruling 230/4 by Speakers Wall and Smith: once a member has made a complaint to the Speaker about a matter of privilege, it is not appropriate to raise that complaint in the House by way of notice of motion, nor should the member seek to litigate the veracity through House proceedings. It is not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of the complaint, to prohibit that would unreasonably constrain Parliament's privilege of free speech. The question is in order.”
Question 10 was from Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall to the Associate Minister for Health, Casey Costello.
During Question Time Ayesha Verrall holds up a copy of the specific document that is “no specific document”. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
It seems that a ‘matter of privilege’ has been raised with the Speaker regarding New Zealand First MP Casey Costello. She is a government minister who has been facing increasingly punchy questions regarding her changes to tobacco regulation; changes spookily similar to the stated ambitions of a tobacco company.
Raising a matter of privilege with the Speaker is Parliamentary language for making a formal complaint; that an MP (in this case a minister), has broken one of Parliament’s more serious rules.
Once the complaint is made, and the complainee has had a chance to respond, the Speaker decides whether a ‘question of privilege’ exists. In plain language, whether there is a case to answer. If the Speaker judges it worthy of further inquiry he will refer it to the Privileges Committee, which is chaired by the Attorney General Judith Collins. Usually, only at that point is the existence of a privilege complaint announced to the House. If a matter of privilege is not referred, it is not made public.
A drastic attempt at a rescue
On Tuesday, Shane Jones was outing his own MP. Apparently in an unsuccessful effort to protect her from further questions, or possibly to impede continued questioning from Labour’s Ayesha Verrall, who has been in this particular fight all year, and seems to be getting into the swing of it, so to speak.
Verrall’s primary question was: “Does she stand by her response to written question No. 405 (2024), ‘There was no specific document written. A range of information was provided to officials, including material like Hansard reports, the Coalition Agreement and previous NZ First policy positions’; if so, how is this consistent with her having now released the document in question under the Official Information Act?”
While the Speaker did not agree with Shane Jones’ attempts to prevent questions he did note that there were bounds to what could be said or asked.
“If there was a speech made about this matter, a general debate comment made about this matter, or a motion made on this matter, they would all be out of order. But a question doesn't necessarily make any allegation. A question is a question. If it transgresses into that area, then clearly we have a problem and it will be stopped.”
Jones intervened again once Question 10 and its follow-ups began, both with suggested answers and with a point of order. This may have been an attempt to close down a line of questioning, or it may have been to give Costello more time to construct an answer. It was an ironic exchange – see below.
Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her response to an OIA request from Radio New Zealand that the document was delivered to her office as hard copy on 6 December 2023?
Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, you undertook to ensure that the line of questioning did not violate Speaker's ruling 230/4. We now have this member repeating falsehoods and using question time as an echo chamber to undermine natural justice.
Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order. Well, sir, there's no possible grounds to make the claim that the member is asking falsehoods when she's simply asking the minister to stand by a statement she has previously made. This question is entirely in line with the primary, which you yourself have ruled to be appropriate.
Speaker: That is right, and if I listen to the answers that have been given so far, they are fairly clear. So, without penalty, ask the question again.
----
It has been a long slow bout, nearly as long as the current government, but fascinating all the way. It may have many rounds yet to go.
Whether the ‘matter of privilege’ becomes a ‘question of privilege’ and confirmation of what its specifics might be, are yet to be seen.
If you want more background on this story we recommend this recent piece from Guyon Espiner.
