Parliament provides a number of ways for Opposition MPs to get information from Ministers in order to hold them accountable. Once such mechanism are written questions.
MPs may ask written questions to Ministers about anything related to their portfolios. There is no limit on the number of questions that can be asked, and Ministers have 5 days to lodge an official reply. Where the reply will take longer to generate, the Minister is permitted to file a 'holding reply', and provide the full reply once it is available. However, there has to be a genuine reason for this - they cannot do this simply to delay providing information that is already available.
Despite these rules, it is fairly regular for Ministers to miss the 5-day deadline. Rodney Hide has an example on his blog today:
The reply took six weeks and missed out important details (i.e. her car hit a third-party as well).
This happens all the time, and generally nothing every really comes of it. Eventually the member raises the issue to the Speaker, the Speaker hassles the Minister, and the reply arrives.
Is this really an incentive for Ministers to respond promptly and fully to written questions? Not really. It is in their interests to delay as long as possible (particularly where the matter is contraversial), provide as little information as possible, and provide it in as obscure way as possible (hence MPs have to ask for the data to be sorted in a specific way, or else it comes back in a useless manner).
I propose a few changes to the rules around written questions to make Ministers more accountable to Parliament. They would not be all needed together, although that would be very nice.
MPs may ask written questions to Ministers about anything related to their portfolios. There is no limit on the number of questions that can be asked, and Ministers have 5 days to lodge an official reply. Where the reply will take longer to generate, the Minister is permitted to file a 'holding reply', and provide the full reply once it is available. However, there has to be a genuine reason for this - they cannot do this simply to delay providing information that is already available.
Despite these rules, it is fairly regular for Ministers to miss the 5-day deadline. Rodney Hide has an example on his blog today:
00414 (2006) Published - Ministerial Services - Normal Reply /span>
Question: Has the Prime Minister’s motorcade been involved in anyaccidents in the past 12 months; if so, on what dates, where and what are the details?
Portfolio: Ministerial Services
Minister: Rt Hon Helen Clark
Date Lodged:14/02/2006
Answer Text: On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.
Date Received:21/03/2006
Question: Has the Prime Minister’s motorcade been involved in anyaccidents in the past 12 months; if so, on what dates, where and what are the details?
Portfolio: Ministerial Services
Minister: Rt Hon Helen Clark
Date Lodged:14/02/2006
Answer Text: On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.
Date Received:21/03/2006
The reply took six weeks and missed out important details (i.e. her car hit a third-party as well).
This happens all the time, and generally nothing every really comes of it. Eventually the member raises the issue to the Speaker, the Speaker hassles the Minister, and the reply arrives.
Is this really an incentive for Ministers to respond promptly and fully to written questions? Not really. It is in their interests to delay as long as possible (particularly where the matter is contraversial), provide as little information as possible, and provide it in as obscure way as possible (hence MPs have to ask for the data to be sorted in a specific way, or else it comes back in a useless manner).
I propose a few changes to the rules around written questions to make Ministers more accountable to Parliament. They would not be all needed together, although that would be very nice.
- If the 5-day deadline passes and no response has been received (even a 'holding response'), then this should be regarded as a prima facie breach of privilege, and automatically referred to the privileges committee. The Speaker would have limited power to wave this for accidental omissions within reason (i.e. forgetting to lodge replies too frequently is not a good reason). Hauling Ministers in front of the privileges committee would probably lower the offending rate fairly quickly.
- Missing the 5-day deadline is grounds for an urgent debate in Parliament. This would quickly eat into the government's legislative time and slowdown their programme.
- Have an escalating scale for repeat offendors (like for when members are named and suspended from the House) - possibly suspend their Ministerial warrants for larger and larger periods of time!
- Dock Ministers one day's pay for every late response to a question.
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: