Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Resignation as Member of Parliament

I have received letters from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Hon David Cunliffe seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision of the Auckland High Court in relation to charges that the Hon John Banks filed a false electoral return, his subsequent resignation, and its implications for confidence in the Government. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government that requires the urgent attention of the House. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct ministerial responsibility for the particular case for which the debate is sought.

There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court or the resignation of a member. Furthermore, an urgent debate is not an appropriate means of exploring the question of confidence. The House procedures provide regular opportunities to test the confidence in a Government. I understand the Government has today lodged a notice of motion seeking to set aside a by-election in the seat of Epsom, and that this is likely to be debated this week. This will provide the opportunity to discuss the issues surrounding the resignation of the Hon John Banks. The applications are therefore declined.