The least likely to give actual answers during Question Time in Parliament is often the Prime Minister. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
In Parliament, the first real action each week is usually Question Time on Tuesday, which helps set a tone for the week, and can be pretty boisterous.
In theory, on Tuesdays, ministers should be well-prepped to answer questions. The issues are usually guessable, and ministers have had time to be briefed and prepare.
In practice, ministers come well prepared to answer friendly, patsy questions - but questions from the opposition are a different proposition. The least likely to give actual answers is often the Prime Minister.
Christopher Luxon tends to dodge relevant answers if at all possible. This tendency runs contrary to the constitutional idea that governments are answerable to Parliament.
While it may be contrary to the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty, it is in line with the event's name Question Time (more formally Oral Questions to Ministers). Alas it is not called Answer Time.
Arguably it could be called Reply Time, or even Attack Time, because replies are always given, just not necessarily to the questions posed, and sometimes the answers are only really an attack on the Opposition. This week Labour's Chris Hipkins seemed to be trying a new tack - asking simpler, more discrete questions. It didn't seem to help garner answers, but it did make the Prime Minister's dodging more obvious.
Most of the Prime Minister's attacks on the Opposition relate to the area of policy under inquiry, indicating he did at least hear the question. Not always though. Tuesday's most impressive non-sequitor "answer" was:
Hipkins: "Is he still laser focused on the cost of living; if so, why do basic staples cost more than ever, with bread now 50 percent more expensive than it was just one year ago?"
Luxon: "Well, I appreciate the member, based off this fine document called New Zealand Future Fund, which is a fantastic document-"
At that point Hipkins, and even (on this occasion), the Speaker intervened.
There's a Victorian parlour game that involves players replying to every statement from their opposing player with a non-sequitor. It is harder than it looks, because our brains struggle to think off-topic. Luxon would win every time.
For reference, Parliament's rules for ministers answering questions are below:
Standing Order 396: Content of Replies
(1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.
(2) The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question asked, and not contain-
(a) statements of facts and the names of any persons unless they are strictly necessary to answer the question, or
(b) arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, or ironical expressions, or
(c) discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
