By the time MPs had taken their seats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, The Post had named the official who (the newspaper contended) had received briefing notes from Z Energy and Fonterra which, curiously, have disappeared.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s chief policy adviser was the staffer who received hand-delivered corporate briefing notes at the centre of a climate litigation lobbying dispute.
Matt Burgess served as Luxon’s chief policy adviser from January 2024 until late last year. He was the National Party’s chief policy adviser from January 2022.
And:
The Post has learned Burgess was the official who received briefing material – which was printed out and hand-delivered – from Fonterra and Z Energy in mid-2024.
The Post learned Burgess’ identity through political sources independent of the case.
Luxon’s office has said it has “no record” of the meetings or briefing note in question.
But when questioned in Parliament not so soon after The Post had reported the name, Christopher Luxon resisted sharing the information with MPs.
His disinclination to throw much light on the issue had become obvious the previous day, when Labour leader Chris Hipkins asked:
Who in his office received the 2024 briefing note prepared on behalf of the defendants in the Smith v Fonterra case, which proposed legislation to halt that litigation?
Hansard recorded the response:
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s not in the public interest to identify specific members of staff, but I understand it was someone who left a while ago.
Hipkins broadened his line of questioning.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were any meetings held between his staff and representatives of Z Energy or Fonterra in relation to the Smith v Fonterra litigation; if so, why is there no record of those meetings?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, there is no record or recollection of that interaction from 2024. There’s nothing more I can tell you other than what I said yesterday. Ideally, there should be a record of it, and that’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to make sure everybody understands their obligations.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So were any meetings held with representatives of Z or Fonterra by members of his staff?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, we have no record or recollection of that interaction from 2024. Ideally, there should be a record of it. That’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.
The absence of a record of the meetings made this an impenetrable issue.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his office has no record of these meetings, what steps has he taken since the existence of the briefing note became public to establish whether any such meetings occurred?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there is no record or recollection of any such meetings or interactions, but what action I have taken is that my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind all staff of their obligations about record-keeping.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Z Energy and Fonterra’s proposed amendment to New Zealand’s climate change laws passed on by anyone in his office to any other Minister, their staff, or any Government officials; if so, who?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ve answered that: there is no record or recollection of any interaction in 2024. But, again, this was a Cabinet decision about this case. There are many Ministers who felt very strongly about this situation. Again, what we’re interested in is that it’s the State that sets the climate change framework—it’s not the courts; it’s not business. We don’t need a parallel system causing uncertainty. So it was a pretty straightforward decision for many of us in this Government to make.
That wasn’t an answer to the question, of course.
Luxon had been asked if the proposal that was given to his office by Z Energy and Fonterra had been passed on by his office to any other Minister, any of their staff, or any Government officials.
But as Speaker Gerry Brownlee affirmed in response to a point of order, candour is not required. It’s enough for a Minister to “address” a question.
Hipkins – who by now should have anticipated the PM’s uninformative disposition – persisted.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Z Energy and Fonterra’s proposed amendment to New Zealand’s climate change laws passed on by anyone in his office to any other Minister, any of their staff, or any Government officials; if so, who?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, there is no record or recollection of that interaction in 2024. Ideally, there should have been a record kept; there wasn’t. That’s why my office has subsequently asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.
Hipkins tried a different tack.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can any New Zealanders who object to court proceedings against them directly request law changes from his office, or is that a privilege that is exclusively reserved for corporate lobbyists?
Luxon pulled another of his ploys to avoid answering:
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.
Let’s move on to the next day, by when the official involved in this affair had been named by The Post.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement yesterday that the official in his office who received the briefing notes from Z Energy and Fonterra “left a while ago”, and, if so, when exactly did that official leave?
MPs inevitably are short-changed when they ask two questions. The Minister who answers need answer only one – and sure enough…
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.
Swarbrick would have known the answer to her next question but Luxon wasn’t going to confirm it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the official who received this until now secret briefing note was his former chief policy adviser?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I have said, and I’ve addressed this issue in recent days, I don’t think it’s appropriate that I identify specific members of staff. All I said is that the staff member left a while ago.
At that point of proceedings, Swarbrick had not asked for the official’s name.
Even so, ACT leader David Seymour intervened to keep the name from being uttered – and to try to frustrate further questioning.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it credible for the Prime Minister to not know that his chief policy adviser was meeting with the largest company in the country actively lobbying to change the law in their interest?
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask for you to reflect on whether it is helpful for the reputation of the House for members to use their privilege to identify a specific person who is not in a position to defend themselves, and ask what exactly the public interest is in doing that.
Now we learned that Speaker Brownlee was inclined to ensure the name of Matt Burgess was not mentioned.
SPEAKER: Yes, I’d ask the member to refer to—in her cubbyhole there, or whatever you call it—the Speakers’ ruling 57/1, which makes it very clear that it is inappropriate for—well, it doesn’t make it clear; it says, basically, I think, have some consideration of that.
Raising a point of order, Chris Hipkins said Swarbrick did not name the individual; she had described a job.
He argued:
Somebody occupying a very senior position within the Prime Minister’s Office having their position named is totally consistent with the practices of this House. Naming the person concerned by name would be something that is done very, very rarely, but naming somebody’s position, particularly when it’s the chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister, is absolutely consistent with the practices that have been followed in this House.
The Green Party’s Steve Abel and the Government’s Louise Upston pitched in:
Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, in your rulings, Speakers’ rulings 57/1 and Speaker’s ruling 57/2, it does allow the naming of officials. As the leader of the Labour Party pointed out, Chlöe, our co-leader, didn’t name the official, but the point is that the office of the official has been named. It is not calling into question the conduct of the official, but the extent to which the Prime Minister was not aware of the conduct of their chief policy adviser.
SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’ll come back to that in a minute.
Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order, the Prime Minister has answered the question and been clear about the intent in terms of individuals. Anyone in this House would know that if you use particular titles, it is very easy to then identify people, and so it has the same result as the intent of not naming an individual, by that connection. It’s pretty obvious.
During the arguments around the point of order, Chlöe Swarbrick insisted:
My point, Mr Speaker, is what the Prime Minister knew when. I very intentionally am not naming the person, who—just for the sake of the knowledge of the House—has actually been named this afternoon in a publication from Stuff.
No matter.
Brownlee said Speakers’ ruling 57/1 makes it clear that while a name can be given, people should bear in mind that public officials do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this House.
I would go further and say that by naming a position, it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that people couldn’t work out who that person was. The question then becomes is it absolutely necessary for that to be part of the question for the information to be sought from the Prime Minister, and I would say that in this case, it doesn’t.
PoO concludes from this that Parliamentary privilege can be a great thing for flushing scandals into the public domain because it protects MPs against the risk of defamation proceedings.
But there are times when your newspaper will be more informative.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
Matt Burgess served as Luxon’s chief policy adviser from January 2024 until late last year. He was the National Party’s chief policy adviser from January 2022.
And:
The Post has learned Burgess was the official who received briefing material – which was printed out and hand-delivered – from Fonterra and Z Energy in mid-2024.
The Post learned Burgess’ identity through political sources independent of the case.
Luxon’s office has said it has “no record” of the meetings or briefing note in question.
But when questioned in Parliament not so soon after The Post had reported the name, Christopher Luxon resisted sharing the information with MPs.
His disinclination to throw much light on the issue had become obvious the previous day, when Labour leader Chris Hipkins asked:
Who in his office received the 2024 briefing note prepared on behalf of the defendants in the Smith v Fonterra case, which proposed legislation to halt that litigation?
Hansard recorded the response:
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s not in the public interest to identify specific members of staff, but I understand it was someone who left a while ago.
Hipkins broadened his line of questioning.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were any meetings held between his staff and representatives of Z Energy or Fonterra in relation to the Smith v Fonterra litigation; if so, why is there no record of those meetings?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, there is no record or recollection of that interaction from 2024. There’s nothing more I can tell you other than what I said yesterday. Ideally, there should be a record of it, and that’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to make sure everybody understands their obligations.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So were any meetings held with representatives of Z or Fonterra by members of his staff?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, we have no record or recollection of that interaction from 2024. Ideally, there should be a record of it. That’s why my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.
The absence of a record of the meetings made this an impenetrable issue.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his office has no record of these meetings, what steps has he taken since the existence of the briefing note became public to establish whether any such meetings occurred?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there is no record or recollection of any such meetings or interactions, but what action I have taken is that my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind all staff of their obligations about record-keeping.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Z Energy and Fonterra’s proposed amendment to New Zealand’s climate change laws passed on by anyone in his office to any other Minister, their staff, or any Government officials; if so, who?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ve answered that: there is no record or recollection of any interaction in 2024. But, again, this was a Cabinet decision about this case. There are many Ministers who felt very strongly about this situation. Again, what we’re interested in is that it’s the State that sets the climate change framework—it’s not the courts; it’s not business. We don’t need a parallel system causing uncertainty. So it was a pretty straightforward decision for many of us in this Government to make.
That wasn’t an answer to the question, of course.
Luxon had been asked if the proposal that was given to his office by Z Energy and Fonterra had been passed on by his office to any other Minister, any of their staff, or any Government officials.
But as Speaker Gerry Brownlee affirmed in response to a point of order, candour is not required. It’s enough for a Minister to “address” a question.
Hipkins – who by now should have anticipated the PM’s uninformative disposition – persisted.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Z Energy and Fonterra’s proposed amendment to New Zealand’s climate change laws passed on by anyone in his office to any other Minister, any of their staff, or any Government officials; if so, who?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, there is no record or recollection of that interaction in 2024. Ideally, there should have been a record kept; there wasn’t. That’s why my office has subsequently asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.
Hipkins tried a different tack.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can any New Zealanders who object to court proceedings against them directly request law changes from his office, or is that a privilege that is exclusively reserved for corporate lobbyists?
Luxon pulled another of his ploys to avoid answering:
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.
Let’s move on to the next day, by when the official involved in this affair had been named by The Post.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement yesterday that the official in his office who received the briefing notes from Z Energy and Fonterra “left a while ago”, and, if so, when exactly did that official leave?
MPs inevitably are short-changed when they ask two questions. The Minister who answers need answer only one – and sure enough…
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.
Swarbrick would have known the answer to her next question but Luxon wasn’t going to confirm it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the official who received this until now secret briefing note was his former chief policy adviser?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I have said, and I’ve addressed this issue in recent days, I don’t think it’s appropriate that I identify specific members of staff. All I said is that the staff member left a while ago.
At that point of proceedings, Swarbrick had not asked for the official’s name.
Even so, ACT leader David Seymour intervened to keep the name from being uttered – and to try to frustrate further questioning.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it credible for the Prime Minister to not know that his chief policy adviser was meeting with the largest company in the country actively lobbying to change the law in their interest?
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask for you to reflect on whether it is helpful for the reputation of the House for members to use their privilege to identify a specific person who is not in a position to defend themselves, and ask what exactly the public interest is in doing that.
Now we learned that Speaker Brownlee was inclined to ensure the name of Matt Burgess was not mentioned.
SPEAKER: Yes, I’d ask the member to refer to—in her cubbyhole there, or whatever you call it—the Speakers’ ruling 57/1, which makes it very clear that it is inappropriate for—well, it doesn’t make it clear; it says, basically, I think, have some consideration of that.
Raising a point of order, Chris Hipkins said Swarbrick did not name the individual; she had described a job.
He argued:
Somebody occupying a very senior position within the Prime Minister’s Office having their position named is totally consistent with the practices of this House. Naming the person concerned by name would be something that is done very, very rarely, but naming somebody’s position, particularly when it’s the chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister, is absolutely consistent with the practices that have been followed in this House.
The Green Party’s Steve Abel and the Government’s Louise Upston pitched in:
Steve Abel: Speaking to the point of order, in your rulings, Speakers’ rulings 57/1 and Speaker’s ruling 57/2, it does allow the naming of officials. As the leader of the Labour Party pointed out, Chlöe, our co-leader, didn’t name the official, but the point is that the office of the official has been named. It is not calling into question the conduct of the official, but the extent to which the Prime Minister was not aware of the conduct of their chief policy adviser.
SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’ll come back to that in a minute.
Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order, the Prime Minister has answered the question and been clear about the intent in terms of individuals. Anyone in this House would know that if you use particular titles, it is very easy to then identify people, and so it has the same result as the intent of not naming an individual, by that connection. It’s pretty obvious.
During the arguments around the point of order, Chlöe Swarbrick insisted:
My point, Mr Speaker, is what the Prime Minister knew when. I very intentionally am not naming the person, who—just for the sake of the knowledge of the House—has actually been named this afternoon in a publication from Stuff.
No matter.
Brownlee said Speakers’ ruling 57/1 makes it clear that while a name can be given, people should bear in mind that public officials do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this House.
I would go further and say that by naming a position, it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that people couldn’t work out who that person was. The question then becomes is it absolutely necessary for that to be part of the question for the information to be sought from the Prime Minister, and I would say that in this case, it doesn’t.
PoO concludes from this that Parliamentary privilege can be a great thing for flushing scandals into the public domain because it protects MPs against the risk of defamation proceedings.
But there are times when your newspaper will be more informative.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.