Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I raise another matter that I think is serious and reflects on Parliament and the nature of our parliamentary discussions, and may require you to make a ruling about it. It is this. I have in my hand a media advisory that comes from the Leader of the House, and it announces to the media that the Government will announce the policy that will inform its foreshore and seabed legislation tomorrow in the Beehive theatrette at 9.15, embargoed until 1 o’clock. When one goes on to read it, one finds it says that the media are to be told what the Government’s foreshore policies are, and to be told which principles—I do not know if that is the right word—or factors the Government will use in its foreshore legislation. But the House, as one finds when one reads the advisory further, will not know about the legislation until it is tabled on the Thursday. That leaves members of Parliament completely out of the debate. It becomes a discussion between the Government, in secret, with the media. There is no parliamentary debate. If the media come out from that lock-up and ask for comment from, say, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition will have no idea what the Government’s policies are.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please come to the point.

The British House of Commons would not allow it. The British House of Commons would point out that under our Standing Orders there is a provision for a Minister to rise in this House and make a ministerial statement; then every member of Parliament, the public, and the media can find out together. The Government ought to either do that or, alternatively, table the bill so that all members of Parliament can discuss it, instead of having this procedure, which I suggest reduces Parliament to an irrelevancy.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member may say that, but I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 115/4, which is one of my rulings: “While it is eminently good practice for Ministers to make important policy announcements in the House, it is not by any means a convention in New Zealand.”

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you for pointing out your Speaker’s ruling to me. I have now had a chance to read it. You are correct that that is not yet a convention in New Zealand, but I point out that the ruling refers to a policy, and, in this case, the Government is taking it another stage—this is actually legislation that the Government will table on Thursday. I note that the Leader of the House is shaking his head; no doubt he will be careful not to give the draft legislation to the media. It would be helpful, Mr Speaker, if you were to make a suggestion to the Government that the parliamentary thing for it to do, if it has decided the policy on Wednesday, is at least to make a ministerial statement on Wednesday, so that the House can also know. It really is treating members of Parliament with contempt to inform the media, then to advise the House that it will not let parliamentarians know what is in the bill until Thursday, just before a 3-week adjournment. Perhaps the Leader of the House, who is thinking of taking a call, would give an indication that he was prepared at least to make a ministerial statement on Wednesday.

If it were a requirement that every time a policy statement was made, a ministerial statement was made in the House, we would spend most of our time having ministerial statements and responding to them. I invite the member, in particular, to check his Hansard from the period 1984 to 1990, to see how many times he, for example, announced State asset sales without any announcement being made in the House before it was made in the public arena.

I am happy to. The member makes a very interesting point, but he will discover that State asset sales had to be authorised by legislation—had to go through this House. We had to have approval to do them. In this particular case—[Interruption] I think the member should reflect between now and Wednesday. Here is a major piece of legislation, and the Government says that it will have a lock-up—that, in secret, it will inform the media—and it does not want to advise members of Parliament of the legislation until it is tabled on Thursday. Surely the Leader of the House can see that that is not parliamentary.

A policy statement is being made on Wednesday. The legislation will not be tabled until Thursday. It will not be ready until Thursday. We want it to be considered by the Cabinet legislation committee, which has power to act. I am happy to tell the member that all the policy material will be made available to members of Parliament before 2 o’clock tomorrow afternoon. A general debate time is available for people to debate that policy.

I think most members have some sympathy for Mr Prebble’s complaint, excepting that it comes with a thoroughly bad precedent in his case, as we well know. A good example was on 6 June 1989, when the BNZ was sold to Fay Richwhite in what was claimed by his now coalition partner to be a sweetheart deal. [Interruption] Thirty percent was sold. Does he not remember? Thirty percent was sold under what was called a sweetheart deal, with no announcement to Parliament, whatsoever.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is an interesting piece of information, but it does not actually add anything. I think I have just about had enough on this particular matter, but Mr Brownlee wants to raise a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps as a way through this, and as a way for the Government to recognise that this is serious legislation, and that the announcements tomorrow do form the basis, certainly, of the legislation that may come this week or some time in the future, I wonder whether we could have an indication from the Leader of the House as to whether he would consider allowing one spokesperson from each of the Opposition parties to participate in the embargoed lock-up.

I would be very happy for that to happen, under the usual conditions of an embargo, as with Budget lock-ups.