Loading...
About this Episode
Parliament's Question Time is a slow-moving boxing match with many rounds. This week one boxer's second stepped into the ring to help. They didn't throw in the towel, but they did try to stop the bout.
Shane Jones intervenes with a point of order during questions to Casey Costello (seen behind him).
Parliament's Question Time is a lot like a boxing ring that sits at the centre of our system of responsible government. Every sitting day in the debating chamber, pugilists from a variety of weight classes face up against one another. In the blue corner is a government minister, in the red corner is an opposition MP seeking to bring them down, or at least keep them chastened.
The metaphor might sound brutal, but that's Parliamentary democracy; keeping governments honest and in hand. Not letting them step outside the ring of influence that Parliament, as their master, has allowed them.
It's never an easy fight and in many ways Parliament's rules and precedents favour government ministers. There are so many rules about what can be asked and how; so many ways to slip away, to fend, or to counterpunch.
These bouts might be daily, but there are many rounds, lasting months. But as each match develops, opposition MPs who can find the right jabbing questions, can sometimes release a slow trickle of information that forces a minister against the ropes.
And when that happens sometimes a boxer's second gets involved. They might help set up a few counterpunches from their own corner, or start complaining to the referee that the match is unfair.
On Tuesday, that was Shane Jones, who is a boxer from a heavier weight class. He is Deputy Leader of New Zealand First and a long time MP and political brawler,
His intervention was the Parliamentary equivalent of complaining about the other guy's gloves, the size of the ring, the lights and the presence of camera flashes.
The intervention was evident prior to Question Time, when the Speaker rose to give a ruling.
"Members, I've had a question raised to me today about the admissibility of question No. 10, which I want to take the opportunity to clarify. Speaker's ruling 230/4 by Speakers Wall and Smith: once a member has made a complaint to the Speaker about a matter of privilege, it is not appropriate to raise that complaint in the House by way of notice of motion, nor should the member seek to litigate the veracity through House proceedings. It is not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of the complaint, to prohibit that would unreasonably constrain Parliament's privilege of free speech. The question is in order."…
Hosts & Guests
No transcript available for this episode.
