Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes

I have received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement last night regarding changes to widen the qualifying criteria for the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member in his application acknowledges that legislation is to be introduced today that relates to one aspect of the agreement between the New Zealand Government and Warner Bros relating to the Hobbit movies. The member’s application relates to another element of that agreement.

The test for whether a particular case of recent occurrence requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. It is relevant when considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation, and whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. In addition to today’s legislation there will be other opportunities to consider the criteria for the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. Select committees are currently considering financial reviews and there was a question for oral answer today. I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very narrow point of order, and not disputing in any way your ruling, but it goes to your words “in addition to the debate today”. Can I take it from that that it will be appropriate for today’s debate on the employment relations legislation to be slightly widened in order to consider these matters as well?

Mr Mallard clearly, as a member of one of the Opposition parties that was provided with the bill earlier in the day, knows its content. He will also know that it is an extremely narrow bill. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to rule that where a bill is presented to the House, matters completely unrelated to that bill—completely unrelated to that bill—can be part of the debate on that bill.

Mr Speaker, given that assurance from the Minister about the total lack of a relationship between the two, would you like to review your ruling?

A nice try! What I will say is the Government has chosen, for whatever reasons, to put a bill on a controversial issue through all its stages under urgency. There therefore is not the opportunity for the bill to be considered by a select committee and for public submissions to be heard on it. In those circumstances, it would be my belief—but, of course, it is up to the presiding officer in the Chair at the time—that in the first and second readings, and especially the second reading where the wider context of the bill is debated, the fact that the bill is being put through without the possibility of select committee consideration does mean that the debate could be widened somewhat around the context of the bill. The honourable member makes a perfectly fair point that if the Speaker believed that that was not possible, maybe the Speaker should have allowed an urgent debate on the matter. I am not sure which the Government would prefer—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Not that you would take that into account!

Not that the Speaker would take that into account! I can assure you that the Speaker has had no communication with the Government whatsoever on this matter, and its view does not enter the Speaker’s consideration of the matter, but if the Government wants to make an argument in the way that it has—but the fact is my decision was influenced somewhat by the fact that the legislation is going through under urgency without select committee consideration, and therefore in the second reading in particular the context of the bill would be relevant.