Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday during question time the Minister of Finance was granted leave to table information that he said was advice that he had complied with the State Sector Act with regard to the employment of purchase advisers by the Government. The document that was initially tabled made no reference at all to the State Sector Act. I have checked with the Table Office again today, and the document that was initially tabled continues to be the only document that the Minister of Finance has made available. You gave an undertaking to look at the Hansard. I have had a chance to do that now. It is very clear that the Minister said that the Government had complied with the State Sector Act, and that he would table advice to show that. The tabled document does not contain the words “State Sector Act” in any way.
Mr SPEAKERI checked and watched the proceedings on the replay on television. As I saw the situation, the Minister sought leave to table the document that he had that contained the advice. What advice might have been in that document is another matter; what the Minister might have said in answer to a question is another matter. The Minister sought leave to table a document; he tabled that document. As far as that process is concerned, that is the end of the matter.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that advice. I want to contrast your ruling just now with the approach you took last week in respect of the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to table an extract from community newspapers in Auckland, when you were very, very clear that the Leader of the Opposition would have to do that. You asked him to be very specific about what he was tabling, and you made quite a point of saying he would have to comply. It seems as though the Minister of Finance—
The member will resume his seat. I have ruled on this matter. If the member wants to go down that track, I would advise that he does not do so, because the Leader of the Opposition sought leave to table all the front pages of all the regional newspapers in Auckland. [ Interruption] There will not be interjections. He did not specify the dates. That was drawn to my attention, and that is why these matters should be dealt with sensibly. The Minister of Finance sought leave to table the advice he had. He tabled that advice, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter.
As long as the member is not questioning my ruling, I will hear a point of order, but I warn him that if he is questioning my ruling, he will not have the opportunity to ask his question today.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to elucidate on your ruling. Are you, in fact, setting a precedent for the House that for all future tabling of documents the date is required? If you are setting such a precedent, I think it will be regarded as a very new ruling—
The member will resume his seat. For goodness’ sake, as Speaker I have tried to give the House the opportunity to receive more information on documents where tabling is sought. I believe that is in the interests of the House. I have done it for the benefit of members, so that they can make a judgment with the best available information. On this occasion, the Minister sought leave to table a document that contained advice, and the House gave permission for that document to be tabled. As far as that procedure is concerned, that is the end of the matter, because members knew what that document was—it was advice to do with the issues that had been covered by the Minister. I believe that was a fair representation of the document. All I am asking members to do is give a reasonable description of any document they seek leave to table. That is the end of the matter.
The member will resume his seat. If the member is questioning my ruling, I invite him to think about it.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am inviting you to give a further ruling, and in it to carefully consider the role of the Speaker in the protection of the House. The House is its own being, and it is up to the House to make decisions based on the information that it is given. Mr Speaker, I would like you to consider carefully and to come back with a further ruling as to whether it is the role of the Speaker to protect either the Government or the Opposition—and we have had two cases that you have gone to—or whether members are, in fact, able to make yes or no judgments based on what they are told by the members concerned.
The member is testing my patience very severely. The member should not have such a short memory. He will recollect that during a previous term members could not even describe a document before their microphones were cut off and the House was expected to make a decision on the tabling of it. I have changed that procedure, in the interests of all members, so that members can make more sensible decisions about the documents being described. I have ruled on the matter; I believe that the procedure was complied with yesterday, and that is the end of the matter.