Points of Order — Estimates—Select Committee Examination

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your ruling and consequent advice on what I think is a reasonably important matter. Select committees at the moment are going through the estimates process, whereby Ministers turn up to the committees to answer questions about various policy proposals in their ministries. Written questions are submitted to departments and other agencies, so that the committee may get a clear idea of exactly what the money voted in the Budget is for.

It has become a bit of a concern to National members that the replies of a number of departments suggest that their output plans have not yet been prepared, and that they will be given to the committee at a later time. It is not just one ministry; it is many ministries that are in this situation. An example is a reply stating that the budget for the Government’s emission reduction plan, which is to be developed by December 2007, is still to be finalised. Also in the case of Ministry of Economic Development, we are told that the output plan of the ministry is being prepared, and will be finalised at a later time, and that it will then be made available to the committee.

Parliament has voted money to these departments, Parliament has a right to scrutinise what the expenditure is for, and Parliament has a right to expect that Government departments bidding for funds, then being granted funds by Ministers, will know what they will use those funds for. So I ask your opinion, Madam Speaker, and your ruling as to where we go to get Government departments to tell us, firstly, why they have had funds voted to them, and, secondly, what those funds are for.

I thank Mr Brownlee. This matter, of course, as you are aware, should be within the control of the committees, so it should be raised with the committees. If they are not satisfied, then they will reflect that in their examination. If there is a general issue, though, relating to that, then may I suggest that the matter be taken up with the Standing Orders Committee, which at the moment is considering a variety of matters. That would be the appropriate place.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With all due respect, I think you have missed the point. Parliament has voted funding for these Government departments. The appropriations have been made based on the estimates. The estimates surely should have been made before the appropriations were granted. I do not think it is unreasonable that Parliament should have a view about the behaviour of Government departments in this regard. It is extremely disrespectful of the process. Further, Madam Speaker, you know that there is a natural process that Parliament goes through whereby select committees are expected to complete their estimates examination and report to Parliament. If there is absolutely no sanction on Government departments, other than the threat that they might have to come back to the select committees and give their usual blurb for a longer period of time, then we start to lose the control that Parliament should have on the expenditure of the Treasury of this country.

First of all, the member is factually incorrect: Parliament has not voted the appropriations for individual departments. That is why we debated the Imprest Supply Bill yesterday. Until the main Appropriation Bill is passed—sometime before the end of August—the appropriations have not actually been voted by this House. They are voted in the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What is one word’s difference?

The one word is “not”, which is a very important word in almost any sentence in the English language. It is not that they have been appropriated; they have not been appropriated at this point in time. The select committees are there to examine the proposed appropriations, and they do not need the output agreements for that to be possible. They need the actual volume of estimates, and can examine the departments on those estimates. There will, of course, be some elements within line items that have not been fully developed in detail, because money is held in broader contingencies within departments. So the member will get the chance to debate this matter when we debate the actual appropriations.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence. I have been tolerant of the exchanges that have just taken place, but no longer.

Madam Speaker, when you are addressing the issue that has been put to you by the spokesperson for the National Party, perhaps you could judge whether it is a serious request by the fact that the foreign affairs estimates examination by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was treated to a total boycott by the National Party of the hearing. That might tell you whether that member is being sincere in that request, or otherwise.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that contribution, but the essential point being made is that the estimates are, in fact, the appropriation process. The appropriations have not actually been made; that is the process that is before the select committees. But I also just repeat, for the information of the member, that if there is a particular issue, then it is initially for the committee itself to address it; if there is a more general issue, the Standing Orders Committee can look at it.