Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand

I have received a letter from the Hon Bill English seeking to debate, under Standing Order 380, the leak of a commercially sensitive Cabinet document relating to the telecommunications stocktake. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of Government, but I do not consider it a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. This may be a sensitive matter but in itself it lacks the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which this matter can be examined. The request is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am just trying to work out the right words for this, but I find your decision extraordinary. The conduct of the executive and its accountability to this Parliament are always matters of importance. This particular circumstance, where the event on which I am seeking a debate is unprecedented in its significance and in its breach of proper process by the executive and those advisers who serve it, must be a matter of importance to this Parliament. When I consider the debates that have been accepted by previous Speakers and by yourself, I think that any number of them—in fact, I think almost all of them—are of lesser significance than the context of executive accountability to Parliament, the subject of this debate. The effect of your ruling is to say that a Minister may have chosen to leak that document deliberately, which could have led to major shifts in the value of New Zealand’s biggest company, but that that is not sufficiently important for this Parliament to debate it. The fact here is that it is not the consequences of the leak that are of vital interest; it is rather that the executive is conducting itself in a way that undermines good government and in a way that Parliament naturally takes as a matter of serious accountability.

You have accepted that the debate meets two criteria: it is a recent occurrence and it involves ministerial responsibility. I seek, in the interests of accepting the ruling, further elaboration on why this matter lacks importance, because that is what you are saying. You are saying that this matter is not important enough for Parliament to debate, which is the third leg of the test. I have to say after 16 years of listening to Speakers’ rulings on these matters in Parliament, I am gobsmacked.

I think, firstly, Madam Speaker, that the member did indicate in the latter part of his comment that, of course, the ruling you have made is your province, and I think it is important that we acknowledge that. Secondly, I think the point you made in the course of your ruling that is of significance here is that there will be appropriate parliamentary opportunities to debate this matter. Thirdly, Madam Speaker, in the course of question time it has been made clear to all members that there is an inquiry under way.

💬 Hon Bill English: That has got nothing to do with this.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please allow the Minister to complete his statement in silence.

At that point, Madam Speaker, the substance of the matter will be clear to all and sundry when the report is issued. In the meantime, you have made a ruling and it is up to members of the House to observe that in an appropriate manner.

The Government has sought to introduce the notion of its own inquiry into this debate, and I think it would find that that is counter-productive. What the executive chooses to do about that is of no interest to this Parliament. The decision about this debate hinges entirely on its importance to this Parliament. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that the fact the Government has initiated an inquiry, and has taken the issue so seriously, underlines the fact that this is a matter of great public importance and deserves urgent consideration. Only Ministers and three officials had that piece of paper, so the Minister, I think, has lent weight to my case. He has made it clear that the Government is taking the matter seriously. The Government has initiated a wide-ranging inquiry into it, and if you took that into account you would almost certainly take the view that this is a matter sufficiently important to debate. I ask you to reflect, Madam Speaker, on other issues that have been regarded as sufficiently important to warrant debate: conduct of Ministers on issues that have affected a handful of people—nothing nearly as significant and large-scale as this leak or its consequences. So if the Government wants to make the point that it is holding an inquiry, that simply underlines how important it is that Parliament gets a full opportunity for debate.

The Minister also said that other parliamentary occasions are available. Actually, they are not. There is no opportunity for a parliamentarian to speak for 10 or 15 minutes on this issue—none. That, of course, is why we have these debates, because the matters are so serious they warrant extended debate and thorough debate. Otherwise, we just put everything off to the 5-minute speeches of the general debate.

No, I do not think I need to hear any more and I thank members for their comments. I want to assure members I did consider the matter very seriously. I did look at Speakers’ Rulings and I did seek advice, and my decision stands.

I seek the leave of the House to debate, according to the speaking times of a snap debate, the matter of the leak of a commercially sensitive Budget document regarding Telecom New Zealand.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Debate interrupted.