There are rules for journalistic interviewing. One is never work with animals and children; that’s just asking for trouble.
More importantly, never ask closed questions; the ones that lead to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers and make for boring, stilted conversations.
They are good in courtroom dramas, when the whole point is pinpointing facts, or dealing with a hostile witness (though I am reliably informed that only the defence attorney uses them).
Which brings us to Parliament and Question Time, where closed questions get asked a lot.
The Speaker is the arbiter of Parliament’s debating rules Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
The majority of the Opposition's primary questions are closed, but that’s more of an opening gambit.
“Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?” opens the Leader of the Opposition. “Yes,” responds the Prime Minister and launches into a list of recent actions she is pleased to be asked about.
Friendly (patsy) questions from a minister’s colleagues are more often openly phrased, often of the “what recent announcements has she made?” or “what reports has he seen?” varieties.
But not always. On Tuesday Labour’s Rachel Brooking asked a closed question of Nanaia Mahuta as Minister for Local Government.
“Does she stand by her comments on Three Waters reforms that ‘Pausing the reform discussion will not help to respond to the significant challenges facing councils’; if so, why?”
“Yes, because the case for change is compelling, well understood, and needs to be addressed. Doing nothing is simply not an option. To expect a responsible Government to ignore the evidence would be simply irresponsible…”
Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Local Government Photo: ©VNP / Phil Smith
Labour MP Rachel Brooking was giving Nanaia Mahuta a chance to clarify her stance, and also vent some frustration with responses from some local governments to the Three Waters programme — a huge project of refunding and restructuring water infrastructure around the country.
Later in the exchange National MP Barbara Kuriger also entered the fray with a supplementary question.
“Will the Minister rule out making Three Waters reforms compulsory for councils; and, if not, why not?”
“I'll rule in the fact that the case for change is compelling and well understood. We've moved well… past the starting point of not understanding the complexity and the scale of the challenge, to, actually, now the sector understanding that there is a significant challenge with huge costs looming on councils that we need to find a different way. The status quo will not work.”
National MP Michael Woodhouse wasn’t satisfied. As Shadow Leader of the House, tackling the referee is part of his job description. He recently took over the role from Chris Bishop.
National MP Michael Woodhouse appealing to the Speaker during Question Time (file photo) Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
“Point of order. ...The last question was not addressed. The question was around compulsion; she answered it with a case for change, and —”
“Order! The member will resume his seat. Have a good look at Speaker's ruling one eighty four. It is very clear.” - Speaker Trevor Mallard.
Both Michael Woodhouse and the Speaker, Trevor Mallard were correct, but about different things. The minister had avoided the idea of compulsion, which might have contravened the requirement that questions are at least “addressed”.
But that wasn’t the rule the Speaker was referring to.
Like a parliament-nerd I had grabbed my copy of Speakers’ Rulings and looked up page 184 - which has a number of rulings about ministers answers - none of which seemed pertinent. Hmmm.
“Point of order. My point of order had nothing to do with Speaker's ruling one eighty four.” — Michael Woodhouse.
“Well, that might be the member's opinion; it's not mine.” — Speaker Trevor Mallard.
I was wrong, Speakers’ Rulings are confusingly numbered. The Speaker was referring to page 180, ruling four. 180 / 4. Aha!
That ruling is pretty simple. It says “a member cannot demand a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to a question.”
Would she rule out compulsion? That’s a closed question.
Asking questions is more difficult for MPs than it is for journalists. In the House, if you want a question answered to your preference, you have to phrase it perfectly — and a closed question doesn’t cut it.
You could say that asking closed questions can let a minister off the hook.
When posed as primary questions, closed questions allow the minister to offer their favourite recent policies or actions.
Posed as supplementary questions, closed questions offer an escape hatch — because the polar yes/no answer is only ever an option and never a requirement.
Still, an unanswered question can be a news story in itself, of the ‘Minister won’t confirm’ variety.
