Urgent Debates Declined — Justice, Ministry—Security of Online Information

Honourable members, I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the shutdown of the Earthquake Commission’s external email systems and business-to-business data exchange, and all systems that allow access to its systems by external parties, as a result of another major data breach. The shutdown is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. As significant as such privacy breaches are to confidence in Government information systems, not every such breach will warrant an urgent debate. The action taken by the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission to immediately shut down the Earthquake Commission’s external information system was significant, but a restricted return to business has been approved and an investigation by the Government’s Chief Information Officer is under way. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.

I have also received letters from Grant Robertson and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release of the Cabinet secretary’s report on the Government Communications Security Bureau. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The members’ authenticating material shows that the report is due to be released later today. The urgent debate procedure is not a means of debating matters that may occur in the future. There cannot be a debate on the basis of media speculation about what may or may not be in the report. An application can be lodged up until the time the House meets. If something occurs after that time it can be lodged for debate on the next sitting day. The application is also declined.

I have also received a letter from Clare Curran seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 a serious flaw in the Ministry of Justice’s website. Every statement in a letter seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance must be authenticated. The member has not provided authentication of the flaw other than her own press release, nor is there any authentication of the Ministry’s reaction or response. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the requirement of a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility has been met at this time. The application is therefore also declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously I am not challenging your ruling, but I do note that in your reasons for declining my application you said that media reports were not a basis. I would like to note that it was the words of the Acting Prime Minister that there was a report, and that he in fact described some elements of the report—the fact that there were around 80 potential pieces of unlawful spying. So it is not just media speculation; it is actually the Acting Prime Minister’s own words about the report that were in our application.

I am not sure now what the point of order is from the member.

💬 Grant Robertson: It is just clarification.

The clarification for the member is that, as I came into the House at 2 o’clock, the report, at that stage, had not been released. The member should take note of the ruling.