Urgent Debates Declined — Cabinet Documents—Telecom New Zealand

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption] Not only has Bill English interrupted again, when I started my point of order, but he interrupted you before. But the point of order I am raising is quite separate. He challenged your decision and suggested that you had been leaned on in making that decision. That is grossly out of order, and I think action should be taken against that member.

I did not hear the comment, but if the member said that, would he please withdraw and apologise. I, personally, considered this matter very seriously. I certainly understand that the member thinks seriously about it, but I have to judge all factors, and that is what I did as Speaker—not as Chair of the House, but as Speaker. Would the member please withdraw and apologise if he made that comment on my impartiality.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think you should in any way underestimate our surprise at not getting this snap debate. I think it would be useful—given the very, very considered views put by the Hon Bill English and your consequent response suggesting that you had personally spent a lot of time thinking about this particular issue—and not too much to ask for you to tell us why you think Parliament should not be able to express a view on the very, very serious leak of a Budget document that we know was held by only Ministers and three officials. Clearly, there is a major problem here. The Government has to deal with it, but Parliament must surely be able to express a view. If that is not to be the case and that is your ruling, then perhaps it would be fair to give us more reason for that view than simply that you do not consider it appropriate.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I have judged the matter in terms of both the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. I have balanced the factors, and I have made the decision consistent with the way in which the rulings are given.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this in most serious terms, because you have to make a judgment about how important an issue is and whether it deserves the attention of the House. I have been in this House for nearly 20 years, and I have never seen an event that has had such a dramatic impact on the value of New Zealand’s biggest company. That is clear. I have a press statement that came out just before lunchtime that states that $1.1 billion—not million, but $1.1 billion—had been wiped off the value of one of New Zealand’s biggest companies, a company in which a lot of ordinary New Zealanders hold shares. If that is not a very important issue that was sparked by the leak and the scurry to sort it out, then I simply do not know of anything of that magnitude that has occurred in this Parliament during my time. I ask you to reflect on that and on whether you have seen anything bigger that was caused by the actions of a leaked document and by officials running round and Ministers releasing stuff, so that by this morning Telecom’s share price dropped below the $5 mark. I believe that is the biggest ever implication I have seen from such an action.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That was certainly one of the factors I took into account. Is there anything further? I have ruled on this matter.

My point is simply this. That argument that was put to you by Mr Williamson is totally refuted by the facts of the Australian share market, which was trading after the New Zealand announcement. It was there that the share market saw a change in the shares, not on the basis of the leak.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter, and if the member wishes to continue on this matter, I will rule his point of order out of order. If it is an entirely new matter, that is appropriate, but I will rule the member out of order if he continues the debate on my ruling.

Madam Speaker, I am not attempting to challenge your ruling. I understand your ruling, but I would like to raise a different element of that ruling, which is that my colleague Mr English rightfully raised the issue of this being of significant importance. If one is to think through what occurred on this particular occasion, one will see that this was an action that was brought forward on the part of the Government because the leak, of itself, breached the stock exchange rules. If the company itself had not rung the Minister’s office and simply gone public with this information, it would have been demanded and required to do that because of the stock exchange. That would have been an issue of unparalleled importance to the New Zealand financial markets. If this information came from the Minister’s office, that Minister could not survive in Cabinet. These are the rules that establish and control the financial markets of New Zealand, and—not wishing to challenge your ruling—you are telling the Opposition today that this is not a matter of importance. Yet the very rules that drive our stock exchange were breached. It cannot be a matter that is not important. It simply must be.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. We are starting to relitigate, but I appreciate his comments. I have considered all the matters very seriously, consistent with the rules of the Standing Orders and previous Speakers’ rulings. I now call on Government order of the day No. 1.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on this matter, Mr Brownlee. The debate is actually becoming repetitious, so if you wish to remain in the House, you will allow the House to move on. I call on Government order of the day No. 1.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have not challenged your ruling.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Brownlee, but everything I have heard is a challenge, even though you are not saying you are challenging it. There is nothing more to be said on this matter. I have ruled. I want now for the Government’s business to continue with Government order of the day No. 1.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is with some disappointment that I wish to announce to this House that we will hold a press conference later this afternoon to fully explain our position, because this is the most serious loss of opportunity for us that the Chair has ever denied—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member is entitled to do that.

—and I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that it will lead to a suggestion that there is collusion between the Government and the Speaker to prevent this matter being discussed in Parliament.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Brownlee, but if you make that allegation, you had better have the evidence to prove it; otherwise it is a very serious matter. [Interruption] You have intimated that that is maybe what you would do. All I am saying to you is that if you do, you must be prepared to back it up with evidence. There was no collusion with anyone in the making of this decision.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect, it is not a matter of you waiting around for a press conference for the member to make that allegation; he has made it right in front of you, right now, and that is totally unacceptable. Unless he withdraws and apologises for what was a clear threat, by inference or by any other way, then he should be removed from this House. He is meant to be a senior member of the National Party. He is, in fact, No. 2 and is his party’s spokesman in the House on the House’s order. He cannot get away with doing that. I have never seen anybody make that sort of allegation and get away with it.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: What I heard Mr Brownlee say was that he was not making that allegation but it was a possibility that there would be a press conference. If I misheard, I apologise to the member. I accept his word that he has not made that allegation.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I did not make that allegation—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I have accepted that.

—and my Hansard will show that. But I do think that the tension around this may well be alleviated if the Government would recognise the situation we are in and be a bit more flexible and reasonable on this matter. So I seek leave, once more, for this House to have a debate, conducted under the rules of a snap debate, led off by the Hon Bill English, who put the letter in in the first place—now.

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