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. I have also received a similar application from Dr Don Brash. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence, and involve the administrative and ministerial responsibilities of the Government. This is a particular case of recent occurrence; this is the first day upon which it could be considered. However, as I pointed out to members in my ruling on Thursday, it does not involve the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. It is clear that ministerial responsibility lies with the Minister responsible for Vote Parliamentary Service, and administrative responsibility lies with the Parliamentary Service. The Government’s intention to introduce validating legislation does not alter this.

I understand that the Government intends to introduce a bill today, under urgency, which seeks to validate the parliamentary expenditure in question. This will provide the House with ample opportunity to canvass the issues raised in the reports. Both applications are therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On what basis are you declining the applications? Firstly, if you are making the case that Parliament is about to enter into a debate, you cannot possibly know that that is the case. That most certainly should not have affected your decision.

Secondly, although you are saying this is a matter that is to do with the Minister responsible for these matters, it is also a matter very much at the heart of concern for all parliamentarians. Although the way you have ruled is interesting, Parliament itself has not had an opportunity to express a view on the Auditor-General’s report. What we have instead, apparently, is the Parliamentary Service telling us that it is now working for the Government and that it has been party to the drafting of this legislation. Effectively it is making itself a servant of the Government, and is showing you—and, therefore, this House—a high degree of disrespect.

Thirdly, this debate today is on a very narrow issue relating to a whole spectrum of things. It deals only with the validation of appropriations, and barely touches on anything else. In any event, how can you rule that Parliament itself cannot express a view on this, and how fair is it that the whole organisation of this place, including your offices, have been in cahoots with the Government to effect exactly this result?

I will take up a number of points. First of all, Madam Speaker, obviously your decision on such a matter is final and in itself is not open to debate. Secondly, on the point of view of foreknowledge by yourself of the Government’s intentions, I say that my answer in the House to a question asked by the member was that the Government was going to introduce legislation under urgency as soon as possible. But I have no difficulty in stating that in response to your report to the House, which recommended validation, I wrote to you yesterday, consequent upon Cabinet decisions, that it was the Government’s intention to introduce a bill under urgency today to be passed through all stages. There is nothing improper at all in the Leader of the House communicating that information to the Speaker when the Speaker has recommended to the House that action be taken.

The third point, of course, is that the primary reason why you have turned down the application is that the responsibility lies with the Parliamentary Service Commission, not with a Government Minister. Therefore, it fails to meet the actual test of responsibility.

I will rule on the point of order. I have heard extensive comment on it. I ruled in accordance with Standing Order 380 that there is no ministerial responsibility. I also note that Dr Brash, in fact, included in his application an indication by way of a ministerial press release that the Government intends to introduce legislation. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw and apologise for his implication that something improper was done by the Speaker.

I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This House took time to discuss, as we have said before, the issue of September 11—the planes flying into the World Trade Center. There was no ministerial responsibility for that. We could go through any number of other debates where the House has set aside time for a discussion about matters for which there is no ministerial responsibility.

My point here is that you appear to be saying to the House that you have heard that the Government is going to fix it, so members do not need to have a view on it. That is unfair.

No, Mr Brownlee. Of course any member can seek leave for the matter to be debated. That is the way in which matters are raised. Of course I am not indicating that that course of action could not be taken. It is the job of the Speaker to rule in terms of the Standing Orders and in this instance the Standing Order is clear.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek some elaboration of your ruling, and you may wish to do this by way of a subsequent statement to the House. I thought you helpfully gave an indication to the House on Thursday as to your thinking on the question of ministerial responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition subsequently responded with a further letter to bolster his application for a snap debate, in which he pointed out that the Minister of Finance had taken over some responsibility for the matter raised by the Auditor-General, that he had made an announcement about his intention to legislate, and that, indeed, the matters pertaining to the Public Finance Act then came into play, which clearly of course do fall within the administrative responsibility of the Government.

So while I can understand your reasoning, so far as it went, prior to the Minister of Finance taking the initiative and responding to the Auditor-General’s report, I have some difficulty understanding how the actions of the Minister of Finance could still leave this matter outside the criteria for a snap debate. Without in any way challenging your ruling on this particular occasion, I think it would help the House in the future, in dealing with these matters, if we could understand the reasoning by which we came to this process.

I thank the member. As I pointed out in my ruling, the administrative responsibility is with the Parliamentary Service Commission. If a member wishes to debate this matter, all a member has to do is to seek leave to do so. [Interruption] I have given my ruling, Mr McCully. I have done you the courtesy of explaining the basis of the ruling again. I will enter into no further discussion on it. And the member should be seated while I am standing. I have given my ruling. I have explained the basis of the ruling. As far as I am concerned, it is the end of the matter.

I seek the leave of the House to debate the Auditor-General’s report and the Speaker’s response.

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