Getting specific or aiming wide: The tactics of Question Time

Question Time is one of the most public (though probably not most effective), ways that Parliament keeps an eye on the actions of its chosen executive.

But watching them try can be both confusing and frustrating as questions are repeated, evaded, avoided and ruled outside the rules.

Questioners tactics vary wildly, but never so much as whether to start wide, or go in narrow and early. In this article (and audio - below) retiring MP Grant Robertson reflects on his approach, what works when, why MPs change their tactics and the impact of the Speaker. We also look at how tactical opinions change when an MP moves across the House, and at the role and approach of the Speaker. 

General versus specific primary questions

Discussion of Question Time usually alludes to general or specific primary questions. A primary question is the first of a series of questions that an MP asks - usually of a minister.

A general primary question is usually a version of: “Does he stand by all his statements and actions”. They are incredibly common.

Specific primary questions vary enormously, but as an example on Thursday 28th March Priyanca Radhakrishnan asked the minister for Disability Issues the very specific question:  “Did the reports she received from Whaikaha that she referred to in her answer to question No. 4 yesterday contain figures of those who used disability support funding for pedicures and massages, or did they just contain anecdotal evidence?” 

They can be a lot shorter. For example, while chasing the same issue the previous day, Chris Hipkins asked the Prime Minister: “Does he have confidence in the Minister for Disability Issues?”

The ministers answering questions get a few hours warning of what the primary question will be, when the day’s primary questions are published here. 

Pros and Cons of general versus specific primary questions

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. The general opening question approach gives very little warning of what the follow-up questions (supplementaries) will ask about; which makes it much harder to prepare good answers. 

But, with less warning and less preparation there is usually more leeway given by the Speaker in deciding whether the answers suffice. General openers may allow much more waffly and unspecific answers (though Speaker’s expectations vary enormously). 

Specific primaries give prior warning so ministers should come better prepared and MPs would hope, be held to a higher standard of answers. Sometimes they are. 

Grant Robertson on general versus specific primary questions

I asked the recently retired MP Grant Robertson about the specific versus general approach.

“I made a real point, when I came in as opposition this time around, of not asking ‘Do you stand by your statements and actions’ but asking actual questions. The issue we've got is that, invariably, you end up not getting the answers you want [from specific questions]. And therefore you flip back to a more general thing, to keep them guessing. 

“I think the specific approach could work if the Speaker of the day takes a hard line on ministers answering questions. Now, it's entirely up to the Speaker how that works. But if the Speaker is going to be a bit more lenient, on whether ministers are answering, then the specific question approached starts to lose its value, you know. 

“In a primary question, almost every speaker will make the person answer, but, you know, it gets a bit looser as the [supplementary questions] go on.”

I commented to Grant Robertson that the effectiveness of Parliament is more or less effective, entirely based around how good the Speakers are. I particularly meant the effectiveness of the House’s role in holding the Executive to account.  

“It’s a big factor definitely, I’ll give you that,” was Robertson’s response. “But also… it's like all the sports analogies you can think of: you have to play to the way that the referee is interpreting the laws, and that's just life, and you have to work out how to do it. 

Robertson agreed that figuring that out can take some time.

“With [the new Speaker Gerry Brownlee], I think everybody is working their way through to understand what he wants to be. In my time in Parliament (without naming names), we've had Speakers who've been – to extend the rugby metaphor too far – who let the game flow and played advantage, and then you've had others who have blown the whistle a lot and kind of think they're playing the game.”

Opinions vary whether in opposition or government

The Speaker who satisfies all MPs is a mythical creature. Like in sport, each player’s sympathies colour their view of every referee call. 

MPs’ opinions on Question Time tactics can also oscillate as they move between opposition and government.

For example consider this excellent Spinoff article from 2015 on Question Time. In the piece, the then government minister Judith Collins was derisive about the use of general primary questions. They were “inane”, she said, and signalled “that the questioner isn’t that confident of their position”, and would “elicit a slap-around that leaves the poor questioner asking themselves, ‘Whose stupid tactic was this?’”Fast forward a few years and she was now the Leader of the Opposition. Initially she employed specific primary questions, but by her third week of Question Time she had already tried a new tactic - a general primary. Over time that general approach became her go-to approach.

The Speaker - judge and arbiter of the rules

Opinions on Question Time may also vary with an MP’s current position. But the most crucial position is that of the Speaker. In that same Spinoff article was an opinion from Gerry Brownlee, who is now Parliament’s Speaker – the man who adjudicates question time.

He said that the general primary approach “prefaces to the Minister that the supplementary questions will be of a highly political nature, rather than a forensic examination of a particular issue or Government policy, which in turn leads the Speaker to allow more flexibility to Ministers, allowing them much more political answers, often rendering the question a complete and utter waste of time.”

He preferred the specific primary - which he said “may well be a better use of Parliamentary time.” 

I can only find a couple of primary questions (here and here) that Gerry Brownlee asked in his most recent six years in opposition – in the foreign affairs portfolio. His primary questions employed a mixed approach but were topic specific. 

The current opposition may be noting his stated preference. Some are certainly using more specific primary questions, in an attempt to cajole relevant details from their counterparts. And from the Speaker. 

Grant Robertson indicated that it takes a while for the MPs to figure out what approach a new Speaker is taking and how to work with that.

You can tell they are trying to find a way to make it work. Here for example is Chris Hipkins appealing to the Speaker during questions to Christopher Luxon in early March.

“Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn't the question that was asked. It was actually a very straight question. You indicated yesterday that, if I ask straight questions, you'll have more sympathy. The question was very straight and simple: did the Minister for Disability Issues seek additional funding to meet the shortfall in disability support funding before reducing the entitlement criteria?”

Is it working? You’ll have to judge for yourself. But you can bet that the two different sides of the House will have very different opinions on it.

---

RNZ’s The House – journalism focussed on parliamentary legislation, issues and insights – is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk.