Speaker wants straight answers

Chalk another one up for Lockwood Smith. Parliament's Speaker yesterday secured a small, yet potentially significant, victory in his continuing campaign to get Cabinet ministers to answer opponents' questions in the House in an informative and meaningful manner.

It followed a confrontation between Smith and Finance Minister Bill English. This was no Mexican stand-off. Smith was always going to win. His authority would have been seriously undermined had he not done so. Which begged the question why English chose to defy the Speaker's requests that he make a better fist of answering what was a pretty straightforward question of little consequence in the grander scheme of things.

But that is by-the-by. Alongside imposing greater transparency on MPs' expenses, Smith's drive for proper ministerial accountability during question-time is the best thing that has happened to Parliament for a very long time.

Shifting attitudes does not come easily, however, in an environment where there is every incentive to fudge, obfuscate and generally blur the facts to get one-up on the opposition.

Smith's campaign, not surprisingly, is meeting resistance from his National Party colleagues, typified by English digging his heels into the carpet in mule-like obstinacy in the face of questions from his Labour counterpart, David Cunliffe.

The latter wanted to know whether the online calculator set up by the Government so people can assess the size of their coming tax cuts used the Treasury's forecast inflation rate of 5.9 per cent.

English's reply roamed a bit around the paddock, but did say the calculator did not include factors "not directly attributable to the Budget", such as falling unemployment rates or indexation of entitlements.

When Cunliffe complained that English had failed to answer his question, the Speaker concurred, saying the question was straightforward and the minister should answer it.

National's Gerry Brownlee and United Future's Peter Dunne immediately raised points of order, arguing that if Smith was changing standing orders and overriding previous Speakers' rulings then the House should be told so formally.

But Smith pleaded for "a little sense" to be applied to Parliament's rules.

"It is not a difficult matter, and it is just trifling with the House to avoid answering it. I ask the Hon Bill English to answer."

But a pained-looking English insisted he had already taken the time to explain to the House what the calculator did.

"The calculator shows the impact of the tax and income support changes announced in the Budget. That is what it shows. It does not include factors that are not directly attributable to the Budget, and that is the answer."

It wasn't the one Smith was looking for.

He decided it was time he put his foot down. "I once more - and I am deadly serious - ask the minister not to trifle with the House. I expect the question ... to be answered."

By now English was sailing dangerously close to challenging the Speaker's authority - something that might have seen his ejection from the chamber or even more serious punishment.

The House held its breath. English decided it was wiser to blink first, adding the crucial words "such as price movements" to his earlier answer about what the calculator did not include.

That was enough to satisfy the Speaker - and put another marker on the road to making Parliament work as it should, rather in a fashion which simply suits the Executive.