Urgent Debates Declined — Points of Order

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of your ruling on Mr Prebble’s second request for an urgent debate and in view of comments you made earlier today in question time, could I ask why you have intimated that this is the last sitting day of the House? In looking at the Order Paper, I can see no reason why, if fair debate happens on all these issues, we would be through these debates by 10 p.m. tonight. That being the case, I ask who has given it to be known that this is the last sitting day, and does that mean that we will have proper debate—fully argued in this House—proscribed because of a desire on the part of someone to go home to mum?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: For a start, I say that I have not made that comment myself from the Chair, at all—

You did.

Mr SPEAKER:—when I was giving that ruling. Secondly, as far as I am concerned, I say that I was at the Business Committee last Tuesday, and all parties were represented when that point was made by the Leader of the House, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. Whether that is the case will depend on how we proceed today, but there is no certainty about anything.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reconsider the situation, and your ruling on my letter. You, as Speaker, have sworn to uphold free speech in this House. The effect of your ruling is that we cannot have a debate about something you say is media speculation. I suggest that you, yourself, have ruled on many occasions that you will not allow an urgent debate unless we attach media speculation to show that a matter has happened. How else are we supposed to authenticate something? The whole House and country know that the Government will make an announcement on the foreshore tomorrow. But it will not make that decision tomorrow. You, having been a Minister, know, and we know, that those decisions have already been made and been to the Government caucus. In fact, certain select people in the country have been briefed about them. The only people who have not been briefed are members of Parliament, and I say that for you to decide that the Government can prevent scrutiny by this House simply by keeping the matter secret actually allows parliamentary debate and democracy to be denigrated. The correct course for you, as Speaker, is to acknowledge that the reality does exist and is a major issue. We are reading in the newspapers about the possibility of our beaches being occupied, and if we are not prepared to debate the matter in this House we are saying to the country that the issue is one for confrontation on the beach, rather than for debate in Parliament. I ask you to reconsider your decision and allow this debate, even if that is inconvenient for Government members.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In respect of Mr Prebble’s letter, I say that no event has occurred.

How do you know?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No event has occurred. There is no particular case. Speculation is not a case.

Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is this a relitigation of the matter? I want to know whether this is a new point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If this is relitigating, I want to know. It had better be a new point of order.

It is a new point of order. When you advised of your decision, I believe you may have considered it before the House met today. You referred to there being only media speculation. In fact, there were, from the Prime Minister, two references to the proposed announcement tomorrow, a reference to it from the Hon Tariana Turia, and a reference to the fact that there would not be any opportunity to pursue her on it until March next year. In other words, I ask you to consider whether the assumption that you made about this being mere speculation is tenable in the face of the Prime Minister’s references to the package before us today.

I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 134/5, which goes back to 1988 and also to 1999: “A particular case … must have arisen before the House meets to qualify for a debate.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make sure that you are prepared to give the House an assurance that you know that the Cabinet has not made a decision about this. This is something that strikes me as being an extraordinary assertion for you to make.

If the member had listened to the Prime Minister’s answers earlier, he would have gathered that decisions have not yet been made. It is the intention to take those tomorrow. We shall see how that goes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to that, the Attorney-General, in her answers today, also said that there would be an announcement tomorrow. I accept that that may give weight to Speaker’s ruling 134/5, but that ruling states: “A case … must have arisen before the House meets to qualify for a debate.” This issue has most certainly arisen. The Government has told the House today and on many other occasions that it has conducted 11 hui around the country to discuss exactly this issue. Today there has been the prevention of the tabling of minutes, with a group of Māori members particularly set up for this purpose. I think it is a hard call in the circumstances to say, on what may be the most important constitutional issue for decades, that this House cannot express a view prior to the Government making an announcement.

I do not know how the Government can hold a debate on a particular case when there is no case and no policy has been announced. It is a question of when an announcement is made. I refer the member to the Supplement to Speakers’ Rulings 25/2: “An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper speculation. An event occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are being asked to grant an urgent debate on the nature of the issue on which a decision has been made. The Prime Minister confirmed that in her answer today—carelessly so. So did the Attorney-General, and so did Tariana Turia. It defies credulity to think that we can sit here, knowing this Government’s track record on spin and preparation and on getting all its ducks in order in terms of public relations, and for them to say that it has not made a decision. Yet, somehow—magically—in the next few hours it will make one, not consult the full Cabinet, and go public on it. That is balderdash, and the Prime Minister knows it.

I heard the Minister say quite clearly that decisions had not yet been made. I presume there must be another meeting of Cabinet before decisions are made. I heard that statement made very, very specifically by the Prime Minister.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, then the Prime Minister might like to explain why a media advisory has gone out in the last few minutes indicating that there will be an announcement tomorrow at 2 p.m. from the Beehive theatrette, that it will be attended by senior Ministers, that senior press gallery people will be invited to that theatrette, that the documents will be available to them 1 hour earlier, and that all those documents are embargoed until 3 p.m. tomorrow. If there is no decision, how on earth do those documents get to the printers? Why is this House is being treated with utter contempt by the Government?

There will certainly be an announcement if decisions are taken. No decisions have been taken. The Cabinet business committee has power to act tomorrow. Therefore, if members were to have an urgent debate every time the Government indicates an announcement of policy may be made, then members would be here every day having urgent debates about things where they do not know what to talk about. It may suit members opposite to have a debate about this issue and not know what it is they are debating, but it would not suit the Government. Those members will have an opportunity this evening in the adjournment debate to debate this matter if they want to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

People are relitigating my decision. I have not heard a new point of order in the last 10 minutes. If this is a point of order, it had better be a new one.

💬 GERRY BROWNLEE: It is new material—quite new material. I ask Dr Cullen whether he is telling the House that although, quite clearly, documents have gone to the printers, in readiness for the announcement at 2 p.m. tomorrow, those documents may be pulled or shredded and the press advisory that has gone out may be rescinded.

That is getting into question time. That is not my ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even if this particular decision is not changed at present, I would ask you to review the application of the ruling you have just cited, because, in effect, by saying that an event does not occur until an announcement is made, particularly in the circumstances where the House is about to rise for 2 months, it encourages the Government to avoid allowing this Chamber to function as it should. I would ask you to consider, as Parliament’s man—not as a Government member—to consider a clarification of that ruling so that it does not encourage a Government to do what this Government is doing at present.

This is an argument that can be made by anybody in this House if they wish to do so, and I am sure they will. But it is not my position as Speaker to enter into this area.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am just about at the point where we have to finish this and I want to proceed.

Let me just ask you this—and it may relate to the previous debate, or otherwise. If you look at Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, you will see that there are to be 10-minute speeches. That is an open debate—unlimited. If you look further you will see that after that is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, with twelve 10-minute speeches, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), with twelve 10-minute speeches, and the Government Notice of Motion No 2, with 10-minute speeches—unlimited. Why do we have both yourself, at question time, and now the Deputy Prime Minister saying that members can have this debate tonight? By my reading of this, any fair treatment on this matter today in respect of those five matters on the Order Paper that members are about to deal with will not see them finished by 10 o’clock. I want an assurance that members’ rights will not be proscribed in the interests of some party wishing to duck its responsibility, not face the public, and cover itself up in a circumstance of announcing policy without any parliamentary scrutiny or debate whatsoever. That means I want to know that members will get a fair go, and I want to know whether, if these debates, as they sequentially happen, are carried out, members will still be here tomorrow at 2 p.m.

I have already indicated to a number of members of the House that the Government’s intention is to reach order of the day No. 5. If need be, we will not proceed to completion of previous orders of the day. It is not a question of members’ rights being proscribed. The Government will take its chances on business; if we cannot complete it, then that business will be held over until early next year.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How could Dr Cullen make that statement again, as he did just before, in a category of which he has some understanding, without knowing at all what will happen in respect of these debates? He can shake his head, but if we get to Government Notice of Motion No. 2, item No. 5, and it is an open debate, then how could he possibly know that matters will be suspended at 10 o’clock, in the middle of that debate? If they cannot get it done by 10 o’clock, then we are back here tomorrow.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Exactly.

Right then. That is what I am arguing, and all I want to know is that we are—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We know that.

That is not what the Minister hoped for.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Carry on please.

I am trying to.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I know, and members should not be interjecting.

All I am asking is that we on this side of the House will not have our fair rights of debate proscribed by some desire of this Government not to face scrutiny tomorrow—after it has made the announcement.

As Speaker, I can assure members that I will make sure that members’ rights are upheld.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek further clarification from you. The press advisory notice in front of us is headed: “Foreshore and Seabed Announcement. The Government will deliver a detailed policy statement on the foreshore and seabed tomorrow at 2 p.m. at the Beehive Theatrette.”

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Not may; will.

💬 GERRY BROWNLEE: That is exactly my point—the notice does not say “may”, it says “will”. Quite clearly the detailed work behind this is done. The detail of the announcement is understood and agreed to by all members of the Government and its supporters, and this is entitled “an announcement”. Surely the Government is announcing that it is about to indicate what the detail of its policy is. Why can this sort of action take place in face of the House being told that there is no opportunity to debate the matter?

I wish the member would consult the Standing Orders closely. A decision tomorrow cannot give grounds for a debate today.