Question time’s push and pull of politics and process

Question time is a regular fixture of Parliament's schedule, known for quick quips and the potential for gotcha moments, but this all has to happen with the rules and MPs are constantly testing these boundaries.

MPs attempting to point out the flaws of their political opponents across the chamber were thwarted by the rule book during Question Time this week.

Technically called Questions for Oral Answer, Question Time is an hour allocated around the start of each sitting day in which MPs can publicly quiz the government on how it's doing its job. It's one of the faster-moving parts of Parliament and is often where MPs attempt to flaunt their ability to make clever quips and throw verbal barbs at their counterparts across the aisle.

There are some easy parameters to follow - up to 12 questions can be asked of ministers (and in some cases, MPs), and they must be lodged by 10:30 am to allow ministers time to prepare an answer.

Questions must be concise, only contain necessary and verifiable facts, and be related to a minister's responsibilities as a minister.

When replying, ministers have to "address" the question, which isn't quite the same as answering a question, and they cannot mislead the House. Like a referee, the Speaker of the House keeps track of whether or not MPs are following the rules (outlined in standing orders and speaker's rulings).

Sometimes the questions are about a specific topic, like this one from Labour MP Dr Ayesha Verall to the Minister of Health Simeon Brown: "What is the impact of delayed allogeneic stem cell transplants on patients with blood cancers, and how is that harm being measured at New Zealand's three transplant centres?"

But often scattered throughout the list of questions is a more generic one asking if a minister "stands by all their government's statements and actions".

This template question takes advantage of the rules around follow-up questions, or supplementary questions, which do not have to be submitted in advance. An MP wanting to test the ability of a minister might lodge this type of question to conceal their intended line of inquiry until they're in the House, where a minister must answer off the cuff and to a livestream broadcast.

This week, the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, aimed a "does he stand by all of his government's statements and actions?" question at the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, revealing his topic in the follow-up questions as the cost of living.

Moves from the Question Time playbook

Supplementary questions can be used to probe the government for justification on its actions, and the full exchange canvassed the price of power, airfares, food, and transport. The first follow-up usually belongs to the MP who asked the main question, but after that, any MP can jump in to ask a question and often, an MP from a party in government takes this chance to create an opportunity for the minister to speak positively about their actions or point out flaws in the opposition.

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour used a supplementary to ask the Prime Minister to "confirm that this government is carefully managing its own finances so that New Zealanders face a lower rate of inflation and falling interest rates as a result".

To which the Prime Minister responded, "What I can confirm is that this is a government that won't be looking to increase prices for New Zealanders by increasing the inflation-band target, as that member proposes."

Questions from an MP on the government's team are colloquially referred to as "patsy questions", and the rules allow for them. However, if an MP thinks the question or answer breaches standards, then they can appeal to the Speaker through a point of order, which is what Hipkins did.

"It is an exact example of what you have said the government shouldn't do, which is use patsy questions from the people sitting right beside them in order to attack the opposition and to make false claims about the opposition," he said.

The Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, said that while the question was in order, the answer was not, and the Prime Minister was told to take back what he'd said.

Deputy Leader of the National Party, Nicola Willis, also took advantage of a supplementary asking the Prime Minister to "confirm that one of the first actions of his government was to stop the petrol tax increases which had been scheduled by the last government".

Though before anyone could answer or complain, the Speaker ruled it out of order as the current Prime Minister does not have responsibility for a previous government's actions. At first glance, this could look like a question asked in error, but not all questions require an answer to serve a purpose.

The question is directed to the current Prime Minister (Christopher Luxon), but draws attention to when the opposition was in charge and is doubly pointed considering the Leader of the Opposition was the previous prime minister. It's a roundabout way of rebutting the opposition's criticism by pointing back across the House, and while the question is unanswerable, it can serve a purpose just by being put on the public record.

Testing the limits and application of the rules is a tactic used across the House, and appeals to the speaker are not always successful. Hipkins sought the Speaker's view on whether or not the prime minister should correct an answer about the government's intentions towards petrol taxes.

"Given that the documents the government has tabled in this House indicate that it is intending to increase petrol taxes by 12c a litre, will the prime minister be required to correct that answer?" said Hipkins.

The Speaker replied that "if the prime minister chooses to correct an answer, then that's his prerogative to do so. If you knew the answer, why ask the question-but, anyway".

So why bother to ask a question that won't be answered or one you already know the answer to?

It's all in the name of transparency and accountability. The House of Representatives (which is all the MPs) has three main purposes: It provides a government (from amongst its own members); It considers and approves legislation, and; It holds the government's actions and spending to account.

Question time falls under the purpose of holding the government to account. On paper, it allows all MPs, regardless of the party they belong to, to question ministers about how well they're performing their role. In reality, MPs in government parties will use questions to create opportunities for the government to talk positively about its work, while opposition MPs will try to point out how the government is messing it up, and why they'd likely be better at the job.

So if the format and sentiment are largely predictable, it can raise questions about whether it's a useful exercise or a mere performative tit-for-tat. Ultimately though, this exchange is one opportunity for the public to see MPs in action and decide for themselves whether their elected representatives are doing that job well.

RNZ's The House, with insights into parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.