Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Urgent Debates Declined — Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
[Volume:652;Page:1315] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Otago District Health Board—Removal of Chairperson 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of the Minister of Health to remove the chairperson of the Otago District Health Board. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and it does involve ministerial responsibility. However not every decision by a Minister can give grounds for a debate. The Minister has made a governance change but the board is still in place and the previous chair is still a member of it. Furthermore the member in his application has referred to a case that I understand is currently before the court awaiting sentence. Standing Order 111 prevents reference in debate to matters that are before the courts up until the time that the sentence is delivered. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over other business of the House today. There will be other more appropriate opportunities to consider the performance and current operations of the Otago District Health Board. The financial review of the board is currently before the Health Committee. The application is therefore declined. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the event that Mr Brownlee fails to move the urgency motion correctly would you be prepared to revisit that decision? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will choose to ignore that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to your interpretation of Standing Order 111. Standing Order 111 refers to “prejudice to the trial”. This is not a case of prejudice to the trial. The trial has been completed. It is a sentencing matter and that is for the judge alone. I am not asking you to reverse your decision now but to come back with a considered ruling as to whether sentencing is regarded as part of a trial. To do that Mr Speaker you would have to indicate that a High Court judge as opposed to a jury was likely to be swayed by this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is a point worthy of consideration so I will listen to the Hon Pete Hodgson. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I wish simply to provide you with some information which is that two people were arraigned in front of the High Court they were charged on a number of counts relating to fraud and both gentlemen were found guilty on all counts. This was some months ago both of them are in custody and the only thing remaining from this court case is the sentencing hearing and the sentencing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously I am not prepared to go back and reconsider my decision in respect of the application because it fails on more than one ground. The sub judice issue is simply one of the issues. The primary matter that I have to consider as Speaker is whether the matter is of sufficient moment to set aside the business of the House. 
Hon Annette King 
: It was when Hawke’s Bay went out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Actually that is a very interesting point that the member has just made by interjecting—although she should not have interjected while I was speaking. The member referred to the Hawke’s Bay where an entire board was dismissed and replaced by a commissioner. There were issues therefore of a democratically elected board being replaced. In the case that is before me today only the chair of the board is being replaced—by another board member—and the chair remains on the board. It is my judgment that that is very much a different order of magnitude. 
But I now come back to the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard because this is a very interesting issue in respect of our sub judice rulings in this House. As I understand it and I will seek further advice—if anything I say at this juncture is not correct I will come back to the House on it—the sub judice rule relates to matters that are before the court and sentencing is part of the court process. I believe that it would not be appropriate for me to say that because a conviction has been delivered by a court therefore the matter is not sub judice and sentencing does not matter. It is my understanding that sentencing is part of the court process and therefore we need to be careful not to say that because the court has delivered its decision in respect of conviction the matter is no longer sub judice. If there is anything wrong with what I have just said—and I will seek further advice from the Clerk—I will certainly come back to the House on it because this is a serious issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker and I apologise for taking more time but Standing Order 111 is very clear in its last clause—“if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” I think it would be a very long stretch for you to rule that comment in this House on the chair’s dismissal provides a real and substantial danger of prejudice to a sentencing by a High Court judge. I think our judges are well above that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 It may help you Mr Speaker if you look at Standing Order 112(2) which states: “Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgment given.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his assistance. That has always been my understanding I must say. As I have promised the honourable member Trevor Mallard if I am wrong in believing that sentencing is a crucial part of the sub judice rule and on the fact of whether a judge is involved in deciding a case as distinct from a jury I am very happy to come back to the House because these are important issues for the House. I think the rights of the House are hugely important and we should not be compromising them. However likewise the relationship with the courts is also hugely important and we must not trample over that important difference. If there is anything wrong with the ruling I have given today I will certainly come back to the House on it but what the Hon Maurice Williamson has just reminded us of was certainly my understanding of the situation and that deals with that issue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the honourable member want to introduce new material on this issue? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes just to assist. I do not think Mr Williamson’s point does assist because it says that when sentence has been passed there is no matter for you to consider as to whether there would be prejudice but that does not mean to say that there is necessarily prejudice in respect of Standing Order 111 at an earlier time. It will still be a matter for your determination as to whether there is likely to be prejudice. I suggest that Mr Mallard’s point is still worthy of consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. We will not debate it further today because I will seek further advice on this matter. As I have stated clearly I accept this is a serious issue and there is no way that I want to compromise the rights of this Parliament. I will make sure that the sub judice issue is looked at very very carefully.