Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kōkiri

I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the release of the State Services Commission’s report on its review of Te Puni Kōkiri. This is a particular matter of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The report relates to part 1 of a three-part review of Te Puni Kōkiri being undertaken by the State Services Commissioner. Although it has material that may be of interest to members and that they may wish to take a parliamentary opportunity to explore, I do not consider it requires the House to hold an urgent debate on it today. I therefore decline the application.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This request has been put down on a member’s day, and I see you are telling us that this is not a matter that requires the attention of the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It must be urgent.

Absolutely. I want you to reconsider that answer. This matter does not just concern my party. This is a report on about 200 questions asked by Rodney Hide. The report finds that many of the answers were wrong. But what is far more serious—and in the commission’s words, has “serious consequences”—is that the report states that those circumstances are serious, possibly indicating a lack of capability in the ministry to support the constitutional mechanisms by which Parliament holds Ministers, and therefore the Government, to account, and a systemic impediment to the business of Government, through the deterioration of the relationship between a Minister and his chief executive and senior officials. Why I suggest to you that this is urgent is that this report states that when members of Parliament put down a question tomorrow to Te Puni Kōkiri, there is no mechanism to ensure that the answer is accurate. In fact, the report states that the systemic failures are such, and the relationship between the Minister and his officials is so bad, that the officials actually suspended the report and called in the State Services Commission. I just want to ask you this question: are you saying, as Speaker, that it is perfectly satisfactory that the Government can table a report stating that Ministers can no longer answer questions about Te Puni Kōkiri? If members want to put down questions about that department tomorrow, we have no idea—including the Minister—whether the answer that is being given to us is true or false. I cannot think of a matter that goes more to the issue of parliamentary accountability. I fail to see why the inability of the Government to answer questions accurately is regarded by you as a matter of no urgency.

I tell the member that I looked at this issue. I had to decide whether there would be a special debate on it at this moment. I declined the application.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I have made my ruling, and I will not go into it.

💬 Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I was not going to ask you to go into it. I was going to ask you to take the unusual step of, first of all, giving to us in writing the views that you have just expressed orally to the House. Members do have to make judgment calls about the matters they should trouble you with in relation to Standing Order 376—which matters create the unusual circumstances that require a snap debate. It would help me, and I sure it would help other members, if we could understand your reasoning in that respect.

Well, I have allowed more snap debates this year than, I think, in any other year. But that is because I regarded the applications as deserving ones. I said that this report relates to part 1 of a three-part review. Although the report has material of obvious interest to members and they may wish to take parliamentary opportunities to debate it, I do not consider the report requires the House to hold an urgent debate on it today. That is why I declined the application.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will not have any further comment on my ruling.

I am not commenting on your ruling, but there is an issue that arises out of your ruling. I note particularly the reference in your ruling to words to the effect that members may wish to take further parliamentary time to debate the matter. I think it raises an issue as to whether the fact that this report was released on a member’s day raises the possibility of the general debate being used as a de facto adjournment debate, or whether, if this matter had been raised on a Tuesday or a Thursday, an adjournment debate would have been granted. I am not questioning your ruling, but I think the point about the proximity of the general debate to the issue is relevant, and I would be grateful for some assurance from you that, in determining whether an adjournment debate is to be granted, the fact that there is a general or other debate looming is of little relevance.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly correct on the last point about whether a general debate is looming. But there are numerous ways in which this matter can be raised in Parliament: by questions, in the financial review debate, and in the general debate if members want to use that. But I was not just referring to one particular thing.

I seek the leave of the House to have a debate on the matter set down in the question I submitted.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have that debate. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to think about what you have just told the House. You told the House that you were rejecting the debate because there are other parliamentary opportunities. You were then asked by Mr Dunne what those opportunities were, and the first one you told us about was by way of asking a question. If you look at page 1 of that report, you will see the reason the State Services Commission has been called in is that Te Puni Kōkiri cannot give accurate answers to questions. We are now told that this matter should not be debated, and all the member had to do was to put down a question. Unless you can certify that those answers will be accurate, that appears to me to be an extraordinary piece of advice. We are told—and I have never seen this before—that the State Services Commission is taking over the administration of a State agency, because that agency cannot answer questions accurately to this House. Then we are told that we cannot debate that matter, and that we should just put it down in a question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will allow Mr Peters to say something.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having heard Mr Prebble’s concern, I share it myself. We have a serious breakdown in democratic institutions in this country—namely, Parliament and its question time, and the ability of members of Parliament to hold the executive accountable. If that is not a matter of serious public urgency, I do not know what is. It is the first time in my career in Parliament that I have seen such an investigation come up with that sort of result.

It is an interim report from one official to another. It would be most unusual for an urgent debate to be given on it. I looked at the circumstances, discussed the matter with my advisers, and made my decision.