1. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
to the Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee
When will the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill be reported back to the House?
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee) Link to this
The report-back date to the House is 26 September 2009.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Will the chairperson invite Ministry of Justice officials to appear before the Law and Order Committee before it reports back, to explain their input into the departmental report on the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill; if not, why not?
Carmel SepuloniI seek leave to table my letter to you, Mr Speaker, outlining my concerns at the behaviour of ACT MP David Garrett at the Law and Order Committee yesterday.
Mr SPEAKERNo, I will hear the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. Does the Hon Clayton Cosgrove want to make a point of order?
The Leader of the House will resume his seat right now. Thank you. I have said I will hear the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Just to be helpful, you were very generous in asking whether there was objection to the leave, and you gave an extended period of time for that. There was no objection. You were about to put that, and an objection allegedly came from somewhere. I put it to you that you had already embarked on that course. There was no objection. The letter should be tabled.
Members might note that in fact I had not ruled one way or the other on the matter. The reason why I was hesitating was that I was a little uncertain about the procedures around the tabling of members’ letters to the Speaker. It is not a common request, and the kinds of dangers that might be entered into, were members to seek leave to table letters to the Speaker, were going through my mind. I guess if it is the member’s own letter, then that is a matter for the member to decide. Forgive me; I was not waiting for someone to object. I was pondering on the potential risks around putting such leave to the House. On reflection, given that it is the member’s own letter and therefore I cannot see any particular—
Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a lot of noise down this end of the Chamber, and in fact right throughout the Chamber, yet through it all came a very clear and loud negation from the chairperson of the committee, indicating that she did not want the letter to be tabled.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I was not going to comment, but the member’s recollection is clearly not the case for anyone sitting on this side of the Chamber. The House was absolutely silent. I was surprised at just how long you waited. You appeared to be looking around. You have explained what the reason was for that. But I think to try to argue that there was a lot of noise in the House and you could not hear Sandra Goudie interjecting is just not credible. You then started to say that the letter could be tabled. In fact, so much time had elapsed that my colleague was able to deliver the letter to the Chamber officers for it to be tabled. I do not think that is correct at all.
We are getting into some difficulty here. I will hear from the ACT Party, which we have not heard from yet.
John BoscawenI heard Sandra Goudie say yes on at least two occasions, and possibly on three. Although Mr Hughes may not have heard her, I certainly did, and I can attest to that fact.
I do not need to hear any further on this. The issues that I need to consider are clear. Let me make it very clear to the House that I was not waiting for anyone. I was trying to reflect, because I think this is the first time that I have been asked to seek leave for a member’s letter to the Speaker to be tabled. That is something I was pondering on. I think the only way I can resolve this—and it is my fault we got into this, by my pondering on the issue—is to ask the member who objected whether she objected promptly on my putting the leave to the House. I have to rely on a member’s word. I obviously did not hear the member immediately, but members at the back of the House say that she did object. I believe that the only way I can handle the matter is to rely on the member’s goodwill.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have an alternative approach. Members over there have made it very clear that the member did object. I think we have to take their word. I think that if we have the precedent of asking for the word of other members, then it will get pretty unhealthy.
On that basis, I invite the member to seek leave again. This time, I ask, if any member does object, that it be dealt with promptly. Letters to the Speaker relating to matters of privilege cannot be referred to in debate, but I do not see any procedural problem in this matter. I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, having been pretty blunt with him previously.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I think the problem, Mr Speaker, is that you yourself have just said you hesitated because you were surprised that a member wanted to table a letter that had been sent to you. I presume that it is a matter of privilege that has been raised.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
There is a procedure around that, as you know. A member writes to the Speaker and provides a copy of the letter to the person who is the subject of the privileges complaint. If this is allowed to proceed, then we destroy that whole process, because people will simply come into the Chamber and table documents that outline an allegation against one member or another, and therefore as a document tabled in Parliament it becomes completely public before members on the other side have any opportunity whatsoever to respond. I think it would be an appalling situation if the House allows this to happen today.
I do not need to hear any further on this issue. I believe the point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is a very fair one. If members start using letters to the Speaker to try to make political points, and if members publicise those letters prior to the ability of the Speaker to consider them, the whole system will start to break down. I make it very clear to the House that as Speaker I take a very dim view of that. Members seeking the Speaker to give favourable consideration to an issue around a breach of privilege damage their case very seriously when they make the matter public before the Speaker has had the chance to deal with it.
I think the point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is a very valid one, and that is why I hesitated as I put the leave that was being sought. I think this is a serious issue, and I want the House to reflect on it. That is why I am prepared to have the member seek leave again.
We have had this consideration under points of order, which I think is a very fair consideration because it is a very important issue that we are dealing with. Matters of privilege are important matters. Communications with the Speaker are very important matters, and they are not matters that should be used to score political points in the media prior to the Speaker’s consideration of them. Having had that consideration, I think all members now have the chance to reflect on the matter and to deliberate on the leave that is being sought. Members have a perfect right to seek leave to table whatever documents they believe they wish to table. I think that is the best way to deal with the matter now.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, I think the matter about whether a document, a letter to you regarding privilege, is released is a matter for the person who wrote the letter or even for the person who received it. I agree with you that it is unlikely to get favourable consideration from you, or that it is likely to be a factor that you take into account when considering it. But there have been dozens of occasions over the years where a press statement has been around the gallery with a letter attached to it before the complaint has made it to the member who has been complained about. That tends to indicate that it is more political than something with a serious hope of succeeding at the Privileges Committee, or something that is unlikely to even reach the committee, but I submit to you that that is a matter for the member who wrote the letter and/or the member who was complained about. Either of them has the right to release it, and I am slightly anxious about your suggestion that it would be completely wrong for them to do so.
I hear what the member has said. I accept absolutely the point that the Hon Trevor Mallard makes, which is that it is perfectly within the existing Standing Orders for a member to do that. I have no argument with that. I believe it undermines the procedures of the House, though, and maybe it is something that the House should consider in future consideration of the Standing Orders. Anything that undermines the procedures of the House is not good. It is a practice that used not to happen years ago, but it has tended to happen more. I think on this occasion the best way, now that there has been a reflective period on the matter and the House is in a position to do so, is for the House to decide whether it will give leave for this letter to be tabled. The member should seek leave again, and I invite Carmel Sepuloni to do that.
I seek leave to table my letter to you, Mr Speaker, outlining my concerns about the behaviour of ACT MP David Garrett at the select committee yesterday.