Urgent Debates Declined — IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management

I have received a letter from Sue Moroney seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the establishment of a task force to review the effectiveness of early childhood education spending. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member, in her application, questions statements made by the Minister in making her announcement. These are matters that will undoubtedly unfold as the independent task force goes about its work. The setting up of such a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. The time to consider the work of the task force will be when it reports. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over the other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.

I have also received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the findings of the State Services Commissioner on two investigations into the possible unauthorised disclosure of information. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government, but I do not consider it to be a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. These may be sensitive matters, but they lack the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which they can be examined, and that application is therefore also declined.

I have received a further letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that the Government has put two subsidiaries of the IHC into statutory management. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However, there must be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The statutory management is intended to preserve the provision of services by the companies pending the resolution of litigation and subsequent negotiations. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. That application is therefore also declined.