Urgent Debates Declined — Schools, Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers

I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the retention of the Hon John Banks as a Minister of the Crown despite Mr Banks’ failure to tell the truth about electoral donations from Kim Dotcom. Documents from a police file of the John Banks investigation have been released. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not of itself a particular case of recent occurrence. A case of recent occurrence occurs when a decision is publicly announced by the Government. An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper speculation. The application is therefore declined.

I have also received a letter from Catherine Delahunty seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the closure and merging of schools in Canterbury. The application for an urgent debate should be received by the Speaker at least 1 hour before the House meets. The member’s application was received at 1.36 p.m. Under Standing Order 386(1), the Speaker does have the authority to consider an application lodged after 1 p.m. where the event on which the application is based occurs within 1 hour of the House sitting. In deciding whether or not to consider this application today, the matters that I have taken into consideration include when the announcement was made. It was made at 1 p.m. in Christchurch by the responsible Ministers, I think—the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Hekia Parata—but neither of the Ministers is currently in the House right now. On the basis that the announcement was not made by the Government until 1 p.m., and also the fact that neither responsible Minister is in the House today, I am prepared to consider such an application at the House’s next sitting. Therefore, I am declining the application for today but making it clear that that does not mean that, in fact, I would not consider it not to be a matter of recent occurrence were it to be raised at the next House sitting.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not going to affect the decision you have made, but we are pointing out that the decisions are embargoed until 4 p.m. this afternoon and have not been publicly announced. [Interruption]

Order! I think the member’s point adds to the merit of the decision just made, that the appropriate time to consider such an application would be the next sitting day.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your ruling. I would just like to make the point that the embargo was breached at least—

Order! That is not a point of order.