The House: Analysing government answers on guns

Parliament's Question Time has confirmed a number of aspects of the Government's plans on guns.

When watching questions in Parliament it is worth keeping in mind that Parliament is the supervisor of the government.

Governments run the day-to-day business of the country, but Parliament is the board of directors. Questions in Question Time - even from opposition MPs - are the political equivalent of a manager being grilled in front of the board. Imagine the puzzled frowns on the faces of the metaphorical board of directors, as ministers obfuscate and deflect.

On Wednesday, a number of those questions were around gun control. The exchanges and some analysis of them are below.

This audio is not downloadable due to copyright restrictions.

Questions from Chris Hipkins to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon

Hipkins: "Has Cabinet agreed to draft a law change that will delegate the power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee? If so, why?"

Luxon: "Well, the Government has a number of work [sic] in the firearms space of which we're working our way through, trying to work out how we balance public safety and also efficiency of compliance."

The Prime Minister's go-to answers on most questions are simple and pretty effective. He often repeats a chosen talking point over and over, but seldom provides a solid answer. The example of a talking point in that answer was the concept of "balancing public safety and efficiency of compliance". It sounds very reasonable, but is hard to squeeze detail out of.

On this occasion, Hipkins made Speaker Gerry Brownlee aware a Cabinet minute had been released indicating what the plan was, so the Speaker asked the Prime Minister to try again with his answer.

Luxon: "Again, the member's getting well ahead of himself. We have a piece of work under way. There have been no decisions made whatsoever about semi-automatic rifles. There's been a minor change made to clubs about technical reporting; that is a technical matter and entirely appropriate."

The second attempt was very different, and involved a tightly packed salad of useful words and phrases like "technical matter", "entirely appropriate", "minor change", "getting ahead of himself", "work under way" and "no decisions made". It was pretty well done, but again, it didn't really answer the question.

Unexpectedly, the response to the next question kind of did. This answer was to a "why" question. These are harder to answer and often seem to elicit more useful information.

Hipkins: "Why did Cabinet agree to amend section 74A of the Arms Act to delegate to Nicole McKee the power to determine what a 'prohibited weapon' is?"

Luxon: "The Minister has responsibility for firearms legislation and Cabinet obviously supports the Minister."

The answer includes both the admission asked for earlier, plus some further detail. The admission was reasonable - the Cabinet minute does refer to changing the minister responsible for the Arms Act to Nicole McKee, because the Arms Act has itself been transferred from one ministry to another. Which of those actions was the primary objective is not discussed.

The minute also mentions the minister in charge being able to effect changes to the regulations it includes, via Orders in Council.

Orders in Council are a law-making mechanism whereby the Governor-General formalises a ministerial or Cabinet decision, using a regulation-making power granted by legislation.

It is worth noting the minister Nicole McKee - a former gun-lobby leader - has been highly critical of the tightening of firearms legislation - particularly regarding semi-automatic weapons - that was enacted after the Christchurch mosque shootings.

Hipkins: "Will the delegation to Nicole McKee under section 74A of the Arms Act allow her to increase access to semi-automatic weapons?"

Luxon: "Cabinet has not had the discussion about access to semi-automatic weapons. When it does, it'll come back and be discussed fully."

This answer notes the fact it is usual that changes via Orders in Council are made following approval by the Cabinet; indeed, the process typically immediately follows Cabinet meetings.

Crucially, though, the answer also includes an unexpected presumption - an admission, even - that Cabinet will indeed discuss the possible opening up of who can have and use semi-automatic weapons.

The Prime Minister's undertaking that this would "come back and be discussed fully" could mean many things, but changes made by Orders in Council are not debated in Parliament, so presumably he is referring only to Cabinet-level discussion. In which case any change that occurred to these gun regulations would likely be law before the public were aware it had been discussed.

Even answers that are not exactly effusive can sometimes reveal or suggest information.

Questions from Labour MP Ginny Andersen to ACT Minister Nicole McKee

Later in Question Time, Ginny Andersen asked Associate Minister for Justice Nicole McKee a number of similar questions about the planned transfer of power, including whether the Prime Minister knew it would give her this power to reclassify weapons. McKee's answers were tactically evasive.

McKee: "I just answered that question by telling the member that I do not have that authority, nor do I have that power. It still lies with the Minister of Police. And, while I don't want to make any personal inferences, I think that perhaps maybe the member should listen to the previous answer."

That's a double tactic response. Her previous answer to a similar question was longer, but had a similar approach. Including an insult in the answer is a pretty obvious tactic, but the gist of it was "this specific change hasn't been formalised yet, so I can pretend it isn't so, ignore your question and pretend you're stupid for asking it".

Even when ministers are trying not to answer questions, they frequently give away a lot of information. If nothing else, they are often acknowledging - by refusing to answer questions - a policy or action is likely to be unpopular and they are aware of that, but are doing it anyway. They would apparently prefer it wasn't highlighted and don't want to talk about it.

- RNZ's The House, with insights into parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk