Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme

I have received from the Hon Peter Dunne and Dr Paul Hutchison applications under Standing Order 373 for an urgent debate regarding reports that the flu vaccine that was recently purchased by Pharmac is ineffective against one of the strains of the influenza virus. These applications do relate to a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The matter is of genuine public concern, and this is evidenced, for instance, by the fact that there were three questions on it to the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister this afternoon. But action to address the issue has been announced. While these steps are in train, I feel that there may well be other and better parliamentary means of addressing the issue over the next few days, such as through the financial review debate, which is imminent, the general debate, and further parliamentary questions. I have therefore decided that, on balance, this matter does not require the immediate attention of the House today by way of an urgent debate. The applications are accordingly declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The suggestion that the general debate might be a reasonable forum for this issue to be discussed finds no acceptance with the National Party. We have two speaking slots in tomorrow’s debate, and that gives us 10 minutes in which to discuss this case, inside a 1-hour debate in which, as the House knows, the topics will be wide ranging. As for the suggestion that the financial review debate is imminent, anyone who has had a look at the House programme for this week will know that the financial review debate will not start until the House returns from next week’s adjournment, which would mean that it would be 2 weeks from today before the House could possibly have a debate on this particular topic. In any event, in the financial review debate we get 11 opportunities for 5-minute speeches to scrutinise some 72 Government agencies, departments, and such. I do not think that the reasons you gave to decline the debate, which may well have been valid some time ago when Parliament was smaller and debate times longer, hold water today.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member is aware, of course, that he cannot argue with the Speaker’s ruling. However, the member can seek leave for a debate. Is the member seeking leave for a debate?

In the name of Paul Hutchison, I seek leave for the debate to be held.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the debate to be held. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling and have no quarrel with it, but I wonder whether you could give us further clarification, perhaps at another time. One of the criteria you mentioned for turning down the debate was that the Government had made decisions about this matter. That would be a new criterion that I do not recall having been used to turn down a snap debate before. The snap debate works according to Parliament’s timetable, not the Government’s. The Opposition did not have the opportunity to lodge a letter between Friday and now. The use of that criterion would suggest that as long as the Government makes some decisions before Parliament sits again, then the Speaker may be able to use that as a reason to turn down the debate. I would be interested in your clarification as to whether the fact that the Government has made some decisions will now become one of the criteria that a letter has to meet, or whether the main reason for turning this debate down is that you believe there are other opportunities to debate the issue.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to raise a slightly similar point of order, Madam Speaker, so with your indulgence I will make my point now and perhaps you can respond to both Mr English’s point of order and mine at the same time. In your ruling, which I do not contest, you appeared to imply that there may be not only other occasions for this debate to be held but other developments that may necessitate or justify a debate at some future point, and it is on that matter that I would be grateful for your guidance. As I understand the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, they relate to a matter being raised at the first available time in the House. The risk, therefore, may well be that if this matter is, to take Mr English’s example, the subject of ongoing Government actions at the point that a letter is submitted in the future, that immediate point of urgency and immediacy has been lost. So I would be interested in some clarification in your response on that issue, and some assurance that the ability of members to seek an adjournment on this matter at some point in the future has not been compromised by the ruling you have given today.

The House will be in an interesting position later on today when it does the third reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the bills therefrom. There are 23 separate questions to be put, all of which could be individual votes, which will all, no doubt, be almost exactly the same for each bill. That would almost certainly take more time than an urgent debate on this issue. I would therefore like to suggest to the House that it might be appropriate to take leave to take the 23 votes as one vote and to hold an urgent debate on this issue, which would actually, I think, be a more useful use of Parliament’s time.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague the Hon Bill English pointed out to you, we accept absolutely your ruling on this issue, but I would appreciate your clarification on another issue, for the future. If I heard correctly, I think you used as one of the reasons for declining the application the fact that further questions could be asked on the matter in question time. I think you included language to that effect. What troubles me about that is that I am not sure I have ever heard a Speaker use that kind of thinking in a ruling prior to now. The reason why it is important is that it would be almost impossible, unless the House was in urgency, or about to enter into urgency, for any application to meet that requirement, because every application could be further addressed during question time, unless the House was going into urgency on the next sitting day. I am deeply troubled by that part of the ruling, as a principle, because if that sets a precedent for the future, it would be almost impossible to obtain an adjournment for an urgent debate.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Ruling on—

I do not want you to rule, Madam Speaker, because I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised some interesting points. I also ask you to consider the offer made by the Deputy Prime Minister that if the Opposition were to accommodate the Government in its business, then, effectively, we might be able to have a snap debate. I do not want there to be any suggestion, at all, that your decision was in any way influenced by the fact that we may have to have prolonged voting this afternoon. I would further ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider those points that I raised before, because I do not think that, since Parliament has been under MMP, Speakers have considered the range of opportunities that is available to discuss matters like this. Parliament is very perfunctory for most of its time. When issues like this do arise, I think it is appropriate that members of Parliament have an opportunity to express their views publicly, and that the Government gets an opportunity to explain what it is doing about a particular issue. Otherwise, we just get, as other members have said, the opportunity for the Government to take a few pieces of action here and there that may or may not satisfy public opinion. Parliament does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the members. I would have thought that the interest would be in ensuring that members’ opportunities are enhanced. So I ask you to consider particularly those points that were put in front of you earlier.

There is one point on which I would be particularly keen to have a bit of elaboration and consideration, maybe at some future time. Referring to the opportunity to debate issues in question time, or as question time as an alternative to a debate, does, I think, imply that we can get further with propositions and challenges in question time than in fact the rules are designed to allow—questions are constrained as questions. I think it would be useful to have that particular point clarified. Although, during a debate, one does issue challenges and call for answers, that is often done in a rhetorical sense, which is supposed to be an element that is strictly absent from question time.

I thank members. Ruling on the point of order, I say that I considered the matter on the same basis as my predecessors had, according to their rulings. I can assure members that the business of the House had absolutely nothing to do with this decision, at all. Certainly the factors that have been raised individually were all taken together but were seen in the context of this particular case, and in the light of today.

Furthermore, as I indicated before, I seek leave for the votes on Government orders of the day 1 to 23 to be taken as one vote, and for a debate to be held, according to the standard rules on urgent debate, on the matter raised by the two members.

Leave has been sought in those terms. Is there any objection? There is.