Louis Collins
This week,
Question Time gave us (yet another) reminder that a general
election is just around the corner.
Question Time has
the specific purpose of holding the government to account
through questions directed to ministers. Those questions are
expected to relate to matters within a minister’s
portfolio.
On Tuesday, Finance Minister Nicola Willis
was asked a patsy question on KiwiSaver by her National
Party colleague Ryan Hamilton.
“Why does the
government consider stronger KiwiSaver savings important?”
Hamilton asked.
The Finance Minister’s largely
pre-scripted response was followed by a supplementary
question from her Cabinet colleague Winston Peters. Another
patsy perhaps?
“Is the Minister aware that New Zealand
First ‘opened the window’ to compulsory superannuation in
1997, and again as recently as May 2026, to boost individual
savings and deepen New Zealand’s capital markets?” Peters
asked.
In her response, Willis acknowledged New
Zealand First for “opening the window” before adding, “now
we open the door”.
Peters wasn’t finished.
“Does
the Minister consider it ‘childish’ to promote a policy that
every baby born in New Zealand be provided with a KiwiSaver
account and a kick-start payment, or are mum and dad finally
listening now?” Peters asked.
“Well, I’m absolutely
sure that the Minister agrees with me that putting a bonus
payment into the account of every baby born will not only
increase their retirement savings and the deposit available
to them for a first time,” Willis replied.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
“It will
grow financial literacy in this country. It’s a great idea
and I hope that a future government gets to deliver
it.”
Suddenly, Question Time became campaign policy
time.
For a moment, two Cabinet colleagues had stepped
out of their ministerial roles and into their party
political ones.
KiwiSaver accounts for newborns are a
recently announced National Party election policy, not a
government policy. Rather than scrutinising government
decisions, the exchange centred on a party policy
proposal.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins joined the fray
with a point of order, proposing that if ministers could be
questioned about party policies by their coalition
colleagues, Opposition MPs should be able to do the
same.
He sought confirmation from the Speaker that
questions about governing parties’ policy announcements
would not be ruled out of order.
The Speaker said he
would consider the point and return
with a ruling.
The Speaker did indeed consider
it.
After sleeping on the issue, he returned on
Wednesday afternoon and, before Question Time began,
delivered the following ruling:
“I want to make it
very clear that it is not appropriate for parties to discuss
party political positions ahead of something like the
general election that we are going to shortly. Question time
is for governments to be held account for their
activities.
“It is appropriate for any Minister to be
asked for an opinion, but that opinion, when offered to the
House, should be constrained by decisions about government
policy.
“As we go into the next four months-about 10
and a half weeks of the House to go-there will be a great
temptation to stray into these territories. I’d ask the
House, generally, to show some restraint and stick to the
Standing Orders, as we have for many, many
years.”
Whether MPs do stick to the rules remains to
be seen.
The Speaker’s warning may be enough to
preserve Question Time as a forum for government
accountability. But MPs are not always consistent in how
they apply or interpret the Standing Orders, and there is
often room for ambiguity.
As the election draws
closer, 2pm in the House becomes increasingly fractious,
even between coalition parties.
The Speaker has now
put a stake in the ground to keep it from becoming a venue
for campaign debate, rather than solely a forum for
parliamentary scrutiny of
government.
*RNZ’s The House, with insights
into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with
funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our
articles or podcast at
RNZ.


