Question time not campaign time

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.

"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.