Urgent Debates Declined — Conservation, Department—Restructuring

I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 a privacy breach by the Earthquake Commission. The breach is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. Even though a matter may be important, for it to take precedence over other business there must be an element of urgency. The Privacy Commissioner notes that the Earthquake Commission has taken an “open and honest approach” to the breach and it seems to have been quickly contained. The commissioner will be following up to identify what can be done to make sure that similar breaches cannot occur in the future. Given these circumstances, I do not consider that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.

I have also received a letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Department of Conservation’s release of its national review and the announcement that up to 140 jobs will be cut. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A period of consultation is under way and no final decisions will be taken until feedback has been considered. Any changes will not take effect for some months. There will be other occasions on which the House can debate the final outcome of the national review. I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the business of the House for an urgent debate can be justified today. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to check that in relying on the comments made by the Privacy Commissioner, as you did in ruling on the first of the debates, you were not relying on the comments that were made before the second discovery. The letter referred to the full case. What happened was that there was an admission on behalf of the Earthquake Commission, and the comments were then made about it being open and honest. But, unfortunately, it then became clear that it had not been open and honest, and the number went from, I think, about 9,000 to about 80,000. You relied on comments that related to the first issue and the first number, when the House now knows that, in fact, it had not been open and honest.

I took into account the whole story that evolved from, I think, Thursday, Friday, over the weekend, and today in making my decision.

I seek the leave of the House to debate the privacy breach that occurred last Friday.

Leave is sought for that debate. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.