Parliamentary Procedure

Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (15:05): I have considered the matter that the Leader of Government Business raised with me on 4 May 2023. I took that point of order and also I took advice from the Clerk. The point of order was raised in response to a question asked by the member for Morialta regarding the rules for questions seeking an opinion of a minister. I remind members that standing order 96(1) provides:

questions relating to public affairs may be put to Ministers…

As well, I remind members of standing order 97, which provides:

In putting any such question, a Member may not offer argument or opinion, nor may a Member offer any facts except by leave of the House and only so far as is necessary to explain the question.

In seeking to assist the house, the Leader of Government Business referred to House of Representatives Practice at page 558, which provides:

Questions may not ask Ministers for an expression of opinion, including a legal opinion, for comment, or for justification of statements made by them.

That passage reflects House of Representatives standing order 98(d), which expressly provides that questions must not ask ministers 'for an expression of opinion, including a legal opinion'.

By contradistinction, I observe that the following passage appears at page 640 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand:

Questions may seek an expression of opinion from the member to whom they are addressed, provided that that member has responsibility for the matter about which the opinion is sought.

The standing orders of the Parliament of New Zealand are quite different from the House of Assembly standing orders. In the absence of any specific prohibition in the House of Assembly standing orders against asking questions that seek an opinion, the Chair is guided by the practice of the house.

It is a convention consistent with the practice of the House of Commons, described authoritatively in Erskine May, that questions seeking an expression of opinion on a question of law are disorderly. Likewise, questions seeking an opinion on the accuracy of media or other reports must be ruled out of order. Where questions have sought an opinion from a minister on a matter of public affairs for which the minister is responsible to the house, Speakers have permitted ministers to respond should they wish.

I make the following further observations. I observe that the question asked by the member for Morialta asked the Minister for Education, Training and Skills to explain how the model of preschool education proposed by the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care compared with the government's pre-election commitment. I do not consider that the member for Morialta was seeking the minister's opinion at large. On balance, the member appeared to be seeking clarification on a matter for which the minister is responsible.

Resolving points of order in this area is likely to require fine judgement. To offer practical guidance to the house, the formulation of a question remains important. Questions which seek information or require the minister to update the house in relation to a matter for which they are plainly responsible to the house are more likely to complement the standing orders.

Questions seeking a bare opinion are discouraged, and I would invite the house at an appropriate future time to consider expressly resolving this matter in the standing orders. As Speaker, Sir William Aston observed in the House of Representatives on 27 October 1970, 'Often honourable members seem to overlook the fact that the true and only valid purpose of the question is to seek factual information—not opinions—or to press for action.'