Devaluation inquiry ruled ‘perfectly proper’

Press, 4 October 1984, Page 3

Devaluation inquiry ruled ‘perfectly proper’

By

MICHAEL HANNAH

in Wellington The Speaker of Parliament, Sir Basil Arthur, has found that the Public Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the circumstances surrounding devaluation was “perfectly proper” and within its order of reference. In a long ruling, Sir Basil required only one alteration to the now defunct inquires terms of reference. This would have clarified that investigations into private actions were outside the committee’s scope. Sir Basil had been asked to rule on the validity of the inquiry, before it was abruptly closed last week. His ruling was included in papers tabled by the acting chairman of the committee, Ms Fran Wilde, yesterday. Sir Basil found that the sub-committee of the Public Expenditure Committee, in determining to inquire into

the events, acts or ommissions leading up to the devaluation, and to establish the impact of these moves on the public finances, were within the committee’s order of reference. “It relates to a matter with a profound impact on public expenditure, primarily through the change in New Zealand’s public indebtedness that a change in the value of the currency necessarily involves,” he said. Sir Basil earlier said that the committee could “dig as deeply as it wishes” on the actions of ah organisation which receives public money. But its investigation was limited to the extent that the organisation’s operations had public finance implications. He found the terms of reference, requiring investigation into the measures taken to protect the New Zealand currency and recommendations fox protec-

tive measures which could

be taken in future, also to be proper. However, another term of reference, requiring examination of the management and level of foreign exchange holdings and the extent and nature of foreign exchange transactions, went too wide, he said. In so far as it could have included inquiry into the actions of private organisations, this was beyond the scope of the committee and he suggested this particular item be redrafted to narrow the inquiry to official actions. Sir Basil found it unusual that the committee had drawn up terms of reference, as it had not usually done so in the past. It was also unusual, he said, that it had decided to investigate a Government decision, rather than a Government agency, but this had precedents, such as an earlier investigation into pillaging between

1974 and 1978.

He concluded that, at the time of drawing up the terms of reference, it was “misplaced” to talk of the committee acting ultra vires, as it was merely drawing up guidelines for itself. “The question ought to come up only as and when the committee takes a specific action, such as asking a witness a question or asking for a particular document, for it is at that point that the committee might be operating outside its order of rerence,” he said. “To raise such a question as this before that point is, at best, premature.” Sir Basil said that he would not like to see “such sweeping challenges to a select committee’s jurisdiction” made again, as the “dignity and prestige of our select committee system must be protected by all members of the House.”