Urgent Debates Declined — COVID-19 Response—Middlemore Hospital Patient

I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the management of a now-known COVID-19 patient at Middlemore Hospital. I understand from the member’s letter that he was aware of this issue on 6 September, but sought to clarify some accounts before making his application. However, he could have applied for an urgent debate before the House sat yesterday. There was also an opportunity to raise the matter with the Minister for COVID-19 Response during the Estimates debate. The fact that a member does not raise a matter at the earliest opportunity may be taken as an indication that it is not of sufficient urgency to qualify under Standing Order 399, but it does not automatically rule it out.

The matter that the member wishes to debate appears to have been a possible clinical error. While Ministers answer to the House for the health system and the response to COVID-19, the concept of administrative or ministerial responsibility is narrower for urgent debates than for oral questions. The fact that questions have been addressed to a Minister does not necessarily mean that it involves ministerial responsibility on which an urgent debate can be founded—Speakers’ ruling 200/4, from Dr Smith and a more recent one. Having considered the matters raised by the member in his letter, I’m not convinced that it reaches the threshold that warrants setting aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.