Kiwiblog

Simon Upton writes in the Dom Post:

While coalition politics has certainly blunted the arrogance with which big parties behave in power, only Question Time guarantees that ministers are given a rocky ride, which is why I always found it so hard to understand why Speakers hid behind the mantra that they weren’t there to comment on the quality of ministerial answers – thereby giving carte blanche to those lazy ministers who couldn’t be bothered doing their homework or didn’t want to front up. My political awareness was switched on in the early 1970s listening to Question Time during the days of the Muldoon ascendancy.

His devastating control of Question Time as Leader of the Opposition had me enthralled. By the time I arrived in the House in 1981 that mercurial brilliance had turned to stone.

Muldoon was devastating not just as Opposition Leader, but even as Deputy Opposition Leader. Kirk banned Ministers from going on TV with him.

Lockwood Smith did not spend his parliamentary career dreaming of the Speaker’s chair. But the infelicitous comments that sidelined him from ministerial office turned out to have a deeply silver lining: Dr Smith is requiring ministers to answer the questions that are put to them. This seemingly obvious requirement is, for our Parliament, revolutionary. For the first time, Opposition members have an ally when a minister contemptuously greets a serious question with a non sequitur or a put down. Finally, voters get to see ministers held accountable. And it is all thanks to an MP who has decided that if he’s going to occupy the third highest office in the land, he’s going to take that office seriously. Three cheers for Mr Speaker Smith.

It is ironic. Lockwood ended up Speaker partly as a “punishment” for gaffes, but as Simon Upton says it has a silver lining in the way he has taken the job so seriously.

Whether his brave departure from an indefensible tradition sticks will, of course, depend on whoever succeeds him. Labour and its allies will in due course return to office. Will they be prepared to nominate a similarly tough-minded democrat for the job and be prepared to submit to the same treatment? I hope Phil Goff and his colleagues are taking stock of what Lockwood Smith has done for them. He is the best Speaker in living memory – on this one ground alone – and his initiative deserves to be perpetuated.

If Labour were smart they would keep Lockwood on as Speaker, when they return to office. I suspect he may have retired by then.

Let’s assume Labour win in 2014. Who might be their Speaker? King would be good, but I expect both her and Goff will retire between 2011 and 2014. Darren Hughes will want ministerial office first. Maybe David Parker if he is still here – a lawyer can be useful. I presume Barker and Ross Robertson have retired by 2014.  A possibility could be Winnie Laban – she would be dignified. Damien O’Connor might be a possibility also, if he is still there. He would be popular with most MPs.

When outraged observers talk about the behaviour of our politicians being worse than children, they have almost always just watched Question Time.  This is a vociferous and often fractious one-hour ritual played out on most House sitting days mainly for the benefit of the near-catatonic Press Gallery hovering above.

Having closely observed more Question Times than may be healthy, I’m still a little old-fashioned in the sense that I believe it is a critical part of a robust Parliamentary democracy.  Ministers are held to account and forced to justify their decisions under pressure.  For Opposition members, it can be a chance to raise issues and increase their profile.

Certainly, Question Time can be pedantic and petty, it can be nasty and noisy.  Listeners may struggle to hear what a Minister is saying over an orchestrated barrage of interjections but that is the rough and tumble nature of politics sometimes. 

During the nine-year term of the last Government there were two decisions by the Speaker which resulted in significant changes to how Question Time operated.  One was a significant improvement, the other, in my opinion, contributed to a drop in respect for Parliament as a whole.

The positive change which I will cover in this post was a seemingly minor ruling by Speaker Hunt that the National Opposition (as it was at the time) had a set number of supplementary questions. 

Both primary and supplementary questions are allocated proportionally and minor parties, depending on their size, may get only one or two questions (or even none) on any given day.  Largely by tradition at the time, National had two supplementaries for each of their primary questions and one supplementary on every other question on the order paper.  This meant that National was expected to ask a supplementary even on the most mundane Government patsy question – and they duly did.

This system operated unchallenged for a number of years.  One day, in the middle of a heated series of questions late in Question Time, Speaker Hunt refused to allow Nick Smith (from memory) to ask his second supplementary question which, up until that point, would have been standard procedure.  When pressed on his ruling, Speaker Hunt said effectively that National had used up their allocation of questions for the day based on their (low) number of seats in Parliament at that time.  It was pointed out to him quite strongly that the tradition was well established but the Speaker said he was bound only by Standing Orders.

At the time, very little was made of this ruling which appeared to be largely motivated by a desire to shut down a long-forgotten line of questioning on an issue which does not stick in my political memory.  It did however dramatically (if unintentionally) change the dynamic of Question Time. 

National was no longer obligated to ask supplementary questions on patsy questions or questions from other parties they had no interest in.  They were also no longer limited to two supplementaries on their own questions.  Instead, they could choose to almost “dog-pile” three, four, five, six questions onto what they thought was the biggest issue of the day.

It is fair to say that Labour ministers initially on the wrong end of the dog-pile were not overly enamoured with the new system.  The Opposition could keep asking questions on the issues of their choosing rather than having to think up and ask a worthwhile supplementary on the latest developments in Patagonian Toothfish quota management. 

While perhaps an unintended consequence of the original ruling, this change meant Question Time became more dynamic, more tactical and more focussed on the issues of the day.

In a future post, I will examine a later Speaker’s ruling which had quite the opposite effect.

Lockwood was pretty tough on the Government today. Made Rodney Hide admit there was no cost estimate for the Auckland re-organisation, told Pansy Wong off for far too long answers and slapped down Jonathan Coleman for not answering a question and just attacking the Opposition spokesperson.

To which I say – keep it up Lockwood. Good job.

I missed watching it live, but have now viewed the second segment of Q&A online. The guest was Lockwood Smith (and his fiancee).

The panel discussion afterwards was very interesting. It was Therese Arseneau, Paul Holmes, Ron Mark and Laila Harre. They were all very approving of Lockwood’s decision to try and get Ministers to answer the question, if it is a straight forward primary question.

Laila made an interesting point, about why this may have happened. She said that Lockwood is not personally or politically very close to the National Party Leadership. She contrasted that to Margaret Wilson and Jonathan Hunt who were both extremely close to Clark. In fact we got told how every time she had been in the Speaker’s office, Clark had phoned Hunt while she was there. There is a certain incompatability with being a senior advisor to the PM, and being the Speaker. And we saw that when we had the disgraceful collusion over Harry Duynhoven’s status as an MP.

Lockie I am sure values his own public reputation more than making life too easy for his colleagues. Hence why he has tried to change some things. And ironically I think it actually benefits National also, even though some weaker Ministers may find it hard going. The public see a Government as very arrogant when it refuses to answer even the most simple questions. It loses votes eventually.

What I have found interesting is that Lockie has actually introduced a number of changes, not just redefining the line between addressing and answering the questions. They are:

1. Playing “advantage”. This was referred to as a light handed regulatory approach with clear boundaries, but I see it as a rugby analogy where he concentrates more on kepping the game flowing, rather than penalising every technical infringement. Several times I have heard him say something along the lines of giving the Opposition more supplementaries because a Minister went on too long. So rather than pul everyone up, he is just striving for a reasonably fair process.
2. The previously referred to moving the boundary between addressing and answering the question
3. Is cracking down on points or order that are not points or order. Winston used to be the biggest offender at that – I would say only around 2% of his points or order were legitimate, but Wilson would never pull him up.
4. Discouraging tabling of documents just to be able to read out what it is. He can not stop anyone seeking leave to do so, but has tried to shame MPs by pointing out whenever they seek leave that they are abusing the process and leave should only be sought for documents not already available to MPs. And this seems to have had some effect on reducing such tabling requests
5. Time – it has been many years since question time took only an hour. Hell Helen called a snap election in 2002 because of a few extra minutes a day of question time. In the last two years it was routinely taking around 100 minutes. It is now a lot closer to 60 again.

TVNZ also has online the transcript of the interview with Judith Collins.

John Armstrong praises Lockwood Smith for what he calls his “democratic bombshell”:

Take a bow, Lockwood Smith. At long last, the House has a Speaker who seems serious about removing the blight on New Zealand’s democracy – the increasing tendency of Cabinet ministers to thumb their noses at the constitutional convention that they are accountable to Parliament.

Smith dropped a bit of a bombshell on the first sitting day of the year when he expressed displeasure with Labour Minister Kate Wilkinson’s reply to an Opposition question about the minimum wage, and then instructed her to answer the question again.

Such a practice is almost unheard of. You could see the jaws of National Party colleagues collectively dropping in shock.

I am 100% with Lockwood on this. His ruling does not apply too all questions, but only to the pre-notified primary questions and only when they are asking something factual, rather than an opinion. In those circumstances, one should get a proper response. Now of course the Minister should be able to robustly swipe back at the Opposition also, but this should be on top of giving the actual answer, not instead of.

Such interventions will not win Smith plaudits from his colleagues. They sat in Opposition for nine frustrating years complaining about Labour ministers diving for cover when the political heat was on.

Now in Government, they would expect the boot to be on the other foot. That it isn’t may be unfair on National. But stopping the parliamentary rot meant someone had to start somewhere at some time. Smith has done the right thing by serving notice that he expects ministers to lift their game. The onus is now on him to continue in the manner in which he has begun.

I seem to recall the Herald’s Political Editor saying she thought Lockwood would bomb as Speaker. I look forward to her next blog

In a more minor change Lockwood has also changed the route the Speaker’s procession will take every sitting day at 2 pm. Rather than go straight from the Speaker’s Office to the back entrance to the House through a private corridor, it will now go through the main lobby, allowing the public to see it.

This met with support from all sides, but funniest comment was Dr Cullen who suggested Lockie make it clear that the press gallery can not ask questions of the Speaker during the official procession. I doubt even Duncan Garner would be quite that cheeky!

The Dom Post Editorial also calls for an improvement in question time:

In theory, question time is one of the cornerstones of a parliamentary democracy, The Dominion Post writes. It gives the Opposition an opportunity to hold Government ministers publicly accountable for their stewardship of their portfolios.

In practice it is a farce. Names are called, tempers fray and points of order are endlessly relitigated.

As we saw today, with stupidity over electing the Deputy Speaker.

The root cause of many of the shenanigans is the standing order that requires ministers to “address” questions, but does not require them to answer them.

Instances happen every day.

Take just one example. In September, ACT leader Rodney Hide attempted to quiz then broadcasting minister Trevor Mallard about a 2004 TVNZ interview in which serious allegations were made about fishing company Simunovich Fisheries. The broadcast could be viewed on a blogger’s website, he informed Parliament. Had Mr Mallard seen the site or received any reports about it?

Mr Mallard responded by referring him to a different site that had nothing to do with the matters raised by Mr Hide, but ridiculed National leader John Key.

Mr Hide complained. Speaker Margaret Wilson ruled in Mr Mallard’s favour. “The member may not be satisfied with the answer and others will judge the quality of it, but it was addressing the question of blogs.”

The blog in question was Whale Oil, incidentally. But it is a good example. Serious criminal allegations involving perjury to a select committee were the topic of the question, and the Minister treated it as a joke and wouldn’t even give a straight answer to whether he had seen the leaked tape.

It would be naive to think that National ministers, who have spent the past nine years suffering at Labour’s hands, were now going to turn the other cheek and answer questions in a straightforward manner. But new Speaker Lockwood Smith will do himself and his National Party a favour if he insists on a greater degree of relevancy in ministerial answers.

Indeed.

A Speaker’s reputation is inextricably linked with that of the Parliament over which he or she presides. A government’s reputation is influenced by the way its members conduct themselves in the debating chamber – the theatre in which their actions receive the greatest scrutiny. That is something Labour forgot at its cost during its last term in office.

Labour’s sense of entitlement was very vivid in their last term.

NZPA report:

Mr Goff today repeated criticism of National leader John Key’s decision to nominate as Speaker Lockwood Smith, whom he believes is too partisan to be fair.

This is nonsense, especially coming from the party that appointed Jonathan Hunt and Margaret Wilson to the Speakership. Someone should challenge Goff to explain how Smith would be more partisan than Hunt or Wilson?

He also said National intended to appoint Lindsay Tisch as deputy speaker.

He must read my blog, as that fact went unreported until I highlighted it from the video of the press conference

Both Dr Smith and Mr Tisch missed out on Cabinet roles and Mr Goff said the appointments were to placate the long-serving MPs rather than choosing the right person for the job.

Now here Goff is on stronger ground than the nonsense about Lockwood being too partisan. It is a political reality that there not being room for them in Cabinet is a strong factor in why they are the nominees for Speaker and Deputy Speaker.

But this does not mean they will not prove to be sound choices. Doug Kidd was made Speaker in 1996, basically because they needed room in Cabinet for new Ministers. But Kidd went on to be an excellent Speaker.

And let us remember Labour made Ann Hartley Deputy Speaker, and she was a disaster.

He said the roles were being treated as “a dumping ground for those that can’t get into Cabinet” and thought MPs like Eric Roy and John Carter were better choices.

Eric and John would be very sound choices, and there are factors such as Cabinet inclusion at work. But those in glasshouses should not throw stones. Here is who Labour is putting up for Assistant Speaker:

Labour would have nominated Rick Barker for the role.

Asked why Mr Robertson was not considered, Mr Goff said while he was fond of the role he had other talents, had been appointed as spokesman in several areas and was a useful local MP.

Now could anyone claim Barker would be better than Robertson who is widely respected? Of course not. So Goff is guilty of exactly what he accuses National of.

The Herald reports four contenders for Speaker. They are:

1. Lockwood Smith
2. John Carter
3. Eric Roy
4. Richard Worth

They each have their own claims for the job. Lockwood is National’s longest serving MP. John Carter has been a Whip for many years, knowing Standing Orders well. Eric Roy was a very popular Assistant Speaker and Richard Worth would being a first class legal talent to the role.

This may dismay some, but I think Michael Cullen would also be a damn good Speaker. But I think his latest game playing over Treasury accounts has killed off any chance that he could be seen to make the transition from partisan player to referee.

As for the four candidates, it will presumably go to a National Caucus decision and then the preferred candidate checked with coalition partners.

But wouldn’t it be nice if it was left to the House as a whole to decide? If all parties would agree not to apply the whip and allow a free vote, then they could have a preferential ballot as allowed for in Standing Order 19. It would be fascinating to see all MPs vote from their seats.

I presume two of the unsucessful candidates will probably become Assistant Speakers and that Labour’s Ross Robertson will be Deputy Speaker.

UPDATE: Mallard is against Lockwood being Speaker. That probably helps Lockwood immensely.

Colin Espiner speculates that Lockwood Smith will be made Speaker.

Lockie is a former host of W3, so I guess that will be good training

Colin also predicts portfolios:

• Welfare: Paula Bennett
• Corrections/Police: Judith Collins
• Justice: Simon Power
• Education: Anne Tolley
• Health: Tony Ryall
• Trade: Tim Groser
• Foreign: Murray McCully

Audrey Young looks at possible roles in a National Government:

United Future leader Peter Dunne would be the prime contender for Speaker if National formed the Government after Saturday’s election, the Herald understands.

I’ve heard of this possibility for some months. It depends I suspect on how well United Future goes. If only Peter is returned, then Speaker would make a lot of sense. If he gets one or more MPs coming back with him, a Ministerial role makes more sense. For my 2c I think Peter could be a very good Speaker, and very impartial. But he has also proven himself as a competent Minister.

Act leader Rodney Hide could be put in charge of prisons – as well as Inland Revenue.

Hell that is a good idea. Rodney could well sort out Corrections and I love the idea of him being in charge of IRD! It would also allow ACT input into tax policy which I fully support.

And new National MPs Steven Joyce and Hekia Parata could leap-frog incumbent members straight into the Cabinet.

The day they announced Steven’s list ranking, I concluded he would go straight into Cabinet. I’ve also regarded Hekia as the only other new entrant who could credibly go straight in. Not as certain as Steven but definitely a possibility.

If, however, National or Labour needed a support agreement with the Maori Party, co-leader Pita Sharples would be likely to get Maori Affairs and Associate Education.

The Maori Party co-leader, Tariana Turia, would be likely to get a portfolio within the Ministry of Social Development, and Associate Health.

Tariana in welfare would be great. And Sharples in Maori Affairs could lead a devolution of government spending in key areas to Maori providers rather than the state.