Urgent Debates Declined — Laboratory Services—District Health Boards

I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the High Court’s judgment on the contract for community laboratory services in Auckland. The particular case here is the High Court judgment. It is well established that a judgment of a court does not give grounds for a debate under Standing Order 380, as there is no ministerial responsibility for it—members can see Speakers’ rulings 162/3 for an example. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This has to be an extraordinary ruling on your part. Although you may well say that it is a result of a ruling by a court, the fact is that there is, at least, the very significant potential for tens of thousands of New Zealanders to have their health care disrupted because of this particular situation. There is ministerial responsibility here, because the district health boards report to the Minister. The district health boards are not themselves allowed to have a public view if it is inconsistent with what the Minister would want them to say. We have been through that many times in this House. In this case, I think that the people of Auckland—the overwhelming majority of the people in this population—deserve to have Parliament express a view on what is most certainly a debacle as far as the management of their health care is concerned. I ask you, Madam Speaker—and you must accept that we do not do this in normal circumstances; we normally do accept your rulings—to reconsider some of the advice that you have clearly been given on this matter. This is of huge public importance.

I think that the actual issue in relation to the narrow technicality is quite clear, in terms of declining the ruling. But, of course, even in so doing, this does not prevent the House from debating the matter, as we are about to enter upon a general debate and it would not at all surprise me if members opposite choose to debate that issue as part of the general debate.

If this particular issue is to be classified as “miscellaneous” material, which is the subject of the general debate, according to our Standing Orders—a general debate is held each Wednesday on “miscellaneous” matters—it seems to me hardly to be one of those in a range of matters that might ordinarily come up in a general debate. This is a matter of extreme public importance, and I seek leave for this House to debate this matter, according to the letter set out by the Hon Tony Ryall, immediately.

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

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to ask you to consider giving us, say, a considered ruling on this matter, because I accept, as you have indicated to the House, that court decisions do not generally trigger a debate of themselves. But here we have a decision of the court that cancels a contract of half a billion dollars that has been written with public money and that has involved public officials. It seems to me that some issues arise around that situation, and it would assist members if you would be prepared to consider addressing it in a considered ruling.

No. I thank members for their comments. I have given this serious consideration, and I have had an opportunity to do so for some time, as the matter was raised yesterday when leave was given for an urgent question. However, the fact remains that it is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. As Speaker, I am governed by the Standing Orders as well as Speakers’ rulings, and I try to follow them so that it provides certainty in the House.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

No, I am sorry. I have ruled on this matter, and I am not taking any further debate and discussion. I have given it full consideration. I have ruled, consistent with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

It has to be a different one, Mr Brownlee.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The point is simply this. To suggest that the Speaker of the House is constrained by the Standing Orders or by previous Speakers’ rulings is an utter nonsense. The Speaker’s role is to claim privilege for this House, and the Speaker regularly brings down new rulings that relate to the conduct of this House and the progress of the work that it undertakes. I do not think it is fair that on an issue of such considerable public importance, a ruling is brought down based on the tightest interpretation of the Standing Orders that could be argued, or, for that matter, on previous Speakers’ rulings.

The member is clearly relitigating your decision, despite your warning, and is therefore putting himself in some danger, it seems to me. But, furthermore, it is an extraordinary statement—[Interruption]

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Does the member want to stay in the House? We are talking on a point of order here.

It seem to me extraordinary, Madam Speaker, that the member also argued that you are not constrained by the Standing Orders. I would have thought it absolutely clear that the Speaker is constrained by the Standing Orders; that is the very nature of the job. When it comes to Speakers’ rulings, at some times Speakers may determine that previous Speakers’ rulings should not be followed. It is extraordinarily rare that that happens. Speakers, like judges, very naturally tend to follow precedent in these matters and are very loathe to overturn precedent in such matters—for good reason. Otherwise we would simply enter into a phase of capricious decision-making, rather than orderly decision-making based on precedent.

Dr Cullen makes mention of precedent. I would like to remind you of the precedent regarding your ruling about a snap debate in respect of the Whangamata marina—an issue that involved a $10 million project, when on this issue we are talking about a $650 million contract. I further point out to you, Madam Speaker, that on the issue of ministerial responsibility a decision was made by Ministers in 2003 to delegate the decision on lab testing away from central government and the Ministry of Health to the district health boards, which led immediately, not just in Auckland but throughout the country, to the tendering of lab services. For you to now rule that such decisions of district health boards are beyond the purview of this House to be able to debate is an extraordinary ruling involving a very large portion of public expenditure and the proper accountability of this Parliament for it.

Your decision is being relitigated, but of course it is not beyond the competence of this House to debate the matter. Firstly, the member had the right to, and did, seek leave and that was declined, but, more important, there is now a general debate. I have to point out to Mr Brownlee that the word “miscellaneous” does not mean necessarily “minor” or “unimportant”. It just means that various matters can be raised under that particular provision. In the case of Whangamata, it related to a specific ministerial decision around Whangamata. If one wanted to debate the decision to delegate, that should have been done in 2003 when it was made.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their contributions and for the further comments they have made on my ruling. I would also note that yes, it was a matter of ministerial responsibility in the case that the member referred to.