Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations,and State Enterprises — Speaker Recalled

The Committee of the whole House is seeking leave to debate two further reports—the financial reviews of Industry New Zealand and the New Zealand Teachers Council—at a future date. These reports have not yet been reported to the House by the select committees.

Perhaps the Leader of the House could ask for leave.

I seek leave that the Committee debate the New Zealand Teachers Council and Industry New Zealand institutions, as part of this State-owned enterprises debate, even though reports have not yet been received by the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? Leave is granted.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that that is not good enough. We may have been granted leave for the opportunity to debate the reports before they are reported back, but in my 14 years in the House this is without precedent.

We have come to this particular debate with select committees having not completed their work. If it were now to be a matter of course that we grant leave to debate reports that have not been reported back, then why would select committees bother to meet any kind of deadline? The Opposition cooperates with the Government in order to get to the deadline. If it is now to be the case that the deadline does not matter, then I for one, as a member of the Education and Science Committee, would like a great deal more time to do proper financial reviews of the entities that come before our committee.

I think that, in the first place, the House deserves an explanation, and it has to come from the Government. This is Government business. The Government ought to advise the House as to why it is managing its own business in a way that is unprecedented in the House.

The Government is not in charge of select committees—select committees are. It is up to them. If select committees fail to report their matters, then that can be used as a device to avoid any debate on the performance of State-owned enterprises and Crown entities in the future. The member should always remember the rule of unintended consequences in these matters. I have seen Governments use precisely these kinds of rulings in the past to avoid debate. This Government is, in fact, making sure that there will be debate.

This matter is not entirely without precedent, but I agree with the member that it is unusual, and I thank him for his point of order. There is no delay in the reporting back. Select committees have 6 months to report back, and that deadline has not expired. All I can say is that leave was sought, no one objected, and leave has been granted. We cannot go back from there.

That then raises an issue that is Government business, which is why has it scheduled this debate before the select committees have completed their work, if the 6-months’ deadline has not expired?

That is a matter for the Government. It is not a matter for me to adjudicate. The Government put it on the Order Paper, and it is entitled to do so. Leave was sought and leave was granted. We cannot go back on that.

Mr English has made some very good points, and I suspect that we may have further discussion on this in the Business Committee. But further to that, it now leaves us with one other issue. We have now decided, by leave, that we can debate Industry New Zealand. I will breach the Standing Orders by saying that I do not see that the Minister is available here at the moment, for us to debate that legislation with him. I am aware that other Ministers can fill in, but I thought the Minister might have been available to discuss his vote, given that we gave notice that we intended to debate it. We have now been given leave, and it would be unfortunate if he were not present to debate it.

The leave has been granted and I cannot go back on that. It is up to the Government as to which Ministers are present. The member knows that; it has been the case ever since I have been in the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not questioning any of your rulings, but I am looking for a full explanation of the circumstances the House finds itself in. I presume, as a member of the House, that the Business Committee had some discussion about the scheduling of this debate.

💬 John Carter: Not to any large extent.

Did it, or did it not? Not to any large extent. Someone, somewhere, decided to schedule this debate at a time that required the leave of the House to debate two reports that have not been completed. Mr Speaker, had I been aware of that when you put the leave, I would have refused it, because I believe that the House ought to stick to the process of debating reports when they are completed.

I would like an explanation as to why this debate was commenced before the select committees have finished their job. Mr Speaker, you have made it clear that it is not because of a deadline. The deadline of 6 months has not expired, so there must be some other reason. I would also like an explanation from you as to whether this will be regarded as a precedent—the precedent being that the Government, or the Business Committee, can choose a time to have this debate, regardless of whether select committees have finished their job. This puts the Opposition, in particular, in the position whereby it is reliant on the leave of the House to do a job that is absolutely at the heart of the function of Parliament. We should not be required to get the leave of the House to debate financial reports on Crown entities. There is no other job more important to this Parliament than that one. We need this process cleared up. We need to be sure that there will not be precedents set that limit the opportunity for the House to do the job that an Opposition, in particular, is meant to do.

To be blunt, I do not feel any great need to respond because we are now nearly at the end of the 2003-04 financial year, and this debate is about performance during 2002-03. I have always felt that this debate is already somewhat of a mockery, because it takes place far too long after the events to which it refers. It seems to me that it is quite important to get on with the debate, rather than waiting the 6 months that have been mentioned, as that would really make the debate completely useless.

I will make two comments. Firstly, under Standing Order 334(1), the Government can select any day for this debate. Secondly, there will always be some reports outstanding whenever this debate is scheduled, because reporting is a continuous process.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is just a machinery matter. Are we starting the 3 hours again, when we go back into Committee?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The debate has already started, but the time spent back in the House does not count.

Debate resumed.

In Committee