Urgent Debates Declined — Tariana Turia—Ministerial Dismissal

I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the dismissal of Tariana Turia from the Government. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility.

On 24 February 2004 I ruled on an application for an urgent debate concerning the resignation of the Minister of Immigration. I indicated that I was prepared to accept that application but that on that day there was another issue that took priority for a debate. I did say that not all ministerial resignations lead to an urgent debate.

I have looked back to the results of ministerial resignations and dismissals in terms of urgent debates. In 2000 I allowed an urgent debate on the dismissal of the Minister of Māori Affairs. During the period 1990 to 1999 three applications to debate dismissals or resignations were accepted. One related to the Prime Minister himself, and three were declined.

In the present case there are two factors that help to persuade me not to accept this application. First, the dismissed Minister, though of Cabinet rank, was not in Cabinet. Secondly, the issue that has led to Mrs Turia’s dismissal—the foreshore and seabed legislation—is on the Order Paper and was foreshadowed, in the Leader of the House’s last business statement, for debate this Thursday. The dismissal will clearly be relevant in that debate. In those circumstances the House does not need to hold an urgent debate on the matter today.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell us how, under the Standing Orders, a debate on the seabed and foreshore will enable Opposition parties to discuss Tariana Turia’s dismissal, given that they have only six speeches amongst them—and, of course, one Opposition party supports the Government from time to time.

It seems to me that the circumstances surrounding her dismissal are quite considerable. They lead, quite unusually in terms of the last two Parliaments, to a very precarious position for the Government, unlike any of the other ministerial resignations or terminations. This resignation has gone further and causes a by-election. For a Parliament to be denied a right to express some views on this matter, I think is quite unacceptable.

I wish to respond to one point only; the rest I regard as matters of judgment. On the last point, there is no ministerial responsibility for the fact that the resignation has triggered a by-election. That is purely a choice made by Mrs Turia; not a choice made by the Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It has not triggered one yet, because I have not received any advice to that effect from the member. I am not going to relitigate my ruling. I have explained it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am curious about a matter. We have to accept your ruling, but you kept referring to the member’s resignation. We have learnt today that this was not a resignation. Maybe firings are now day-to-day affairs, but when I was fired it was the first in 150 years. So I am a little surprised that you think a firing is now a day-to-day matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member listened to my ruling very carefully he would know I talked about dismissal. I did not talk, in relation to this case, about resignation.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to proceed. I have ruled on this matter.

I seek leave for there to be a snap debate, under the usual conditions, on the matter of Tariana Turia’s dismissal from Cabinet.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.