(4) FAQs

The Speaker kind of seems like the referee in a game of rugby?

Yes, exactly right.

The Speaker is actually an MP, i.e. one of the 120. He or she is chosen by the House to manage the affairs of the House in a neutral way, i.e. without favouring the government or opposition parties. So even though they are actually from a parliamentary party they can not favour either side. For example, the current Speaker is Trevor Mallard who is a Labour party MP.

Oddly enough, despite the Speaker being a neutral umpire, their vote is still added to the tally of votes from his or her own party. For instance, Trevor Mallard’s 1 vote is included in the 46 votes the Labour party casts for or against bills in the House.

Is there a limit to the number of supplementary questions an MP can ask?

The total number of supplementary questions asked each Question Time is capped. Each party is allocated a certain number of supplementary questions. As with the 12 primary questions, National receives the largest allocation of supplementary questions.

How a party uses its allocation of supplementary questions is really up to that party. It’s quite common, for example, for the Leader of the Opposition to use up quite a few supplementary questions on the primary questions that they personally ask as a way of drawing attention to the issues they’re focussed on. Of course, this leaves fewer supplementary question slots for the party to use on later questions, but that’s the trade-off.

The current Speaker, Trevor Mallard, has introduced a system whereby he deducts supplementary questions from a party’s allocation as a way of punishing MPs who do not follow procedural rules (mentioned in this article).

I’m a bit lost on the ‘patsy’ vote thing?

A ‘patsy’ vote is a primary question asked by a member of one of the government parties (Labour or New Zealand First) or a support party (Greens) to a minister, usually from the same party.

The question is friendly in nature, i.e. it’s designed to allow the minister to share ‘good news’ with the House in their respective portfolio. For example, if the number of people unemployed has decreased, the Minister of Finance might arrange in advance for a backbench MP in their party to ask a ‘patsy’ primary question like: ‘Has the Minister seen any reports on the state of the economy?”. The minister replies: “Why yes, it just so happens that I saw a report from Treasury yesterday showing that the economy is performing strongly and that the unemployment rate now sits below 4%….". Think of it as a verbal press release delivered with a theatrical performance from a minister that would make Shakespeare proud.

To be clear, the questions asked by the National opposition are not ‘patsies’. They are hostile in nature. Question Time is a key tool in the opposition armoury - it provides an opportunity to show inconsistencies, poor performance by the government, and failure to deliver on promises - all with the press gallery looking down from above (when they aren’t busy scratching their names into the wooden table).

‘Cabinet committees’ and ‘Select committees’. How are these different again?

Never fear, confusion is common with these two 😳

Let’s go back to our separation of powers idea: Executive (the government), Parliament, and the Judiciary.

Cabinet Committees sit in the Executive branch. As discussed in session 3, ministers will bring a Cabinet paper to a Cabinet Committee (and then Cabinet the following week). Inside the Cabinet Committee room on the 8th floor of the Beehive, ministers will debate in private whatever policy, funding decision, or appointment that is being proposed in the Cabinet paper.

Select Committees sit in the Parliament branch. In terms of timing, they come after the Cabinet Committees. So, first, ministers will have decided on a policy at Cabinet Committee and Cabinet (e.g. a ban on further off-shore drilling for oil and gas exploration); next the bill is drafted up; then it’s introduced into the Parliament branch; following that a first reading; and then it’s sent to a Select committee (e.g. the Environment Committee) for the public to make submissions and the Select committee to provide a report back to the House.

Why are only some bills voted on as a ‘conscience vote’ and not others?

Ultimately it’s up to each party in Parliament to decide whether its MPs will have a conscience vote (sometimes known as a free vote) or whether the party will vote as a single ‘bloc’ yes or no to a bill.

This means we can have a situation where for some parties a bill is a conscience vote, but for other parties it’s a regular party vote. Chloe Swarbrick’s bill on medicinal cannabis was one such example. The party leader’s view on whether a conscience vote should be allowed for that party is usually quite important.

Tradition seems to play a big part in each party’s decision. Bills dealing with adoption or abortion, for example, have been conscience votes in New Zealand since forever and will likely continue to be.

But tradition doesn’t always carry the day. In 2009 the Law Commission invited all parties in Parliament to stop the long-standing tradition of treating bills dealing with alcohol as a conscience vote. With the exception of the single issue of the purchase age (18 or 20 years) which remained a conscience vote, all parties voted on the Sale and Supply of Liquor Bill as per the normal party vote process on the basis that alcohol laws are best debated as a health matter rather than an issue of morality.