How not to answer questions, and other lessons from parliament

During Question Time on Wednesday, MPs debated at length on topics that are usually off the radar.

For political buffs, the back-and-forth is entertaining but also fraught with lessons. It illustrates how to prepare for Question Time, how it works, the political considerations that might be involved — and shows how not to answer questions.

How not to answer a question

It all stems from one problem. That problem is not in the House of Representatives. It comes from Stuff reporter Glenn McConnell on the tiles of Parliament House on TuesdayHe asked National’s Tamar Potaka (Associate Minister of Housing – Social Housing) about homelessness. Specifically, he asked about data that showed no one knew the housing status of one in five children who had previously lived in emergency housing.

The key parts are as follows:

McConnell – “Are you concerned that some people are now homeless?”

Potaka – “No, no, I’m not worried about some people being homeless right now…”

Potaka’s response was long but he had lost control of the narrative and his response now read “the minister is not concerned about children being homeless”.

This is one reason why politicians rarely answer the questions they are asked, but instead ignore the premise and ask their own questions. This prevents them from accidentally creating a terrible sound bite.

Unsurprisingly, the opposition was keen to ask questions on the topic on Wednesday, with both Labor and the Greens scheduled for question time.

Unraveling the Train Wreck

On the Green Party side, Tamatha Paul criticised Potaka for his poor choice of words.

“Does he stand by his statement about the fall in the number of children living in emergency accommodation, “I’m not concerned that some are now homeless”, and if so, is that why funding for community housing providers has been reduced to just 750 new homes a year under his government?”

This time the minister was prepared. He first tried to clear the previous day’s incident from his tracks before trying to replace it with his own narrative.

“In the context of asking this question, and in relation to priority number one, I am absolutely confident that those 1,110 children were relocated from emergency housing into warm, safe, dry homes between April and July. I am confident and very clear that they are no longer homeless…”

He repeated the words “warm, dry, safe” several times in his response, trying to reinforce his own chosen message.

Negotiation Question Time

It’s interesting that such an exchange took place. Labour’s Kieran McAnulty also wanted to ask Potaka a question, but his question was referred to another National Party minister.

The twelve questions that make up the “Question Time” are actually just the first in a series of questions. The first question or main question is published in advance, but the supplementary questions are hidden.

Major questions are pre-examined in accordance with the Standing Orders (Rules). This is done by the Clerk and ultimately by the Speaker.

The Greens’ main question only applied to Tama Potaka, but McAnulty’s question was broad enough for Chris Bishop to answer it in his place.

The government has the power to look at the twelve primaries scheduled for Question Time and say “the question you asked Minister X will be answered by Minister Y”.

Like the review, this exchange is negotiated between the parties and the Clerk. In fact, the House expects to attend a review meeting in the coming weeks.

There are many reasons why a party might want to pass an answer to another minister: practicality (e.g. who is available), appropriateness (e.g. which minister is more responsible for the question that appears to be the subject) or politics (e.g. to protect a minister who is not good at answering questions). They cannot do this to hide information that only one minister can talk about.

Writing Question Time questions is an art form, and you can see why many MPs choose extremely bland primary questions that are unlikely to encounter such difficulty.

Avoid fuss

McNulty was not happy with the transfer and attempted to have the decision re-examined in the House. It was a difficult task.

After a few seconds, his attempt was over. He was clearly unhappy, but he was also respectful. The Speaker reminded him that his actions could be seen as questioning a ruling, but allowed it anyway. In Parliament, it is considered extremely rude to question the Speaker’s ruling. You can be kicked out of the House for it. However, the Speaker usually doesn’t seem to mind a little respect tussle.

Having failed, McNulty decided that the question he had prepared was now redundant and chose to forgo the opportunity to ask it, at which point Chris Bishop stood up and, doing some brazen grandstanding, asked to be allowed to ask the question and answer it. The Speaker was not impressed. Bishop’s interruption led to a further point of order, and McNulty was given a fuller opportunity to debate. The entire discussion lasted eight minutes.

If the Speaker had one lesson to teach his National colleagues it was “if you’ve won the argument, keep silent”.

The Speaker held his ground for the second vote, but he did offer to let Labor hold the issue until the next day to present a new version. Chris Bishop stood up again and rebuked the Speaker.

“Because he was too lazy to ask me that question, so you’re going to give him free stuff?”

“Mr. Bishop, I have made my ruling. I am not going to change it.”

Bishop may be lucky not to be thrown out of Parliament – I have yet to see Speaker Brownlee inflict that punishment. Brownlee’s response was directed at Bishop, but to some extent it applies to both MPs. It is a difficult task to object to the Speaker’s ruling after the fact, but to disrespect the Speaker is to create something out of nothing.

---

RNZ house – News coverage focusing on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights – funded by the Office of the Parliamentary Clerk.