Urgent Debates Declined — Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report and Speaker’s Response

I have received a letter from Rodney Hide, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Auditor-General’s report on advertising expenditure, and the Speaker’s response to the report. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence and involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence, the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must be an event that has occurred before the House meets. The presentation of a paper at the commencement of a sitting does not give grounds for a debate at that sitting. This application is declined on that ground.

I must also point out to members that the reports that are the subject of the application do not involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The advertising expenditure in question is appropriated in Vote Parliamentary Service. The Parliamentary Service is not an instrument of executive government. The appropriations are made, in respect of each parliamentary party, for party and member support. They cover funding for the parliamentary parties to support their leaders’ officers, research operations, whips’ offices, and members’ parliamentary operations. Ministers are not responsible as Ministers for that spending. The spending is incurred as members of a parliamentary party, not as Ministers. The Speaker is the responsible Minister for Vote Parliamentary Service. It is the Speaker who is answerable for the appropriations, not a Minister. Any future such application could be declined on that ground.

This does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the immediate attention of the House. It simply does not meet the requirements of the urgent debate procedure, the principal purpose of which is to hold the Government accountable for urgent and important matters for which it is responsible. I ask members to give consideration to facilitating the debating of the matter early next week, when members have had an opportunity to read and digest the reports.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask for a bit of further clarification on that matter. I think you are being very good in being quite specific about what your thinking will be, should you receive other requests subsequent to the tabling of the report today, but it would seem to me that if you follow the logic that you are apparently going to apply here, then this House would never have had a snap debate on the September 11 tragedy, for example, or on other numerous other incidents that have occurred internationally for which, clearly, the Government of New Zealand has no responsibility and carries no particular ability to affect the outcome.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, and I say there are various methods, as I indicated in my statement, as to how debates in the House can be held.