Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s decision to accept the recommendation of the Overseas Investment Office to grant consent to Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of Shanghai Pengxin Group Co. Ltd, to acquire the 16 Crafar farms. I have also received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate the initiating of a police investigation into the Hon John Banks’ electoral spending and the fact that the Prime Minister refuses to stand him down.

I will deal with Mr Mallard’s application first. Allegations have been made and referred to the police. Allegations can never constitute a particular case of recent occurrence; neither can the absence of action on the part of a Government. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that might or might not occur in the future. Therefore, that application is declined.

The decision of Ministers on the sale of the Crafar farms is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Given the significance of the decision, I would have been persuaded that the matter warrants the immediate attention of the House. However, I am informed that a judicial review of the Ministers’ decision was lodged on 26 April. Given that the matter is again before the courts, the application is declined.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask how, then, the Opposition would ever get an urgent debate in respect of this issue, given that there will be no ministerial decision required if the court finds there was no illegality? Can we then apply again?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: To which letter are you referring?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The decision on the Crafar farms, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a ministerial decision of Mr Williamson and others. It has been judicially reviewed in the courts, as you say. But would that mean that once that judicial review decision comes out, we can then put another application in because at the moment we cannot have it heard?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The short answer is yes. But the member is also aware that the Standing Orders absolutely preclude any opportunity for this House to debate a matter that is sub judice before the courts. And on that basis it is ruled out.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, this House is not forbidden from debating a matter that is before the courts. This matter was looked at very carefully, as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, by the last Standing Orders Committee, and there are some restrictions and some notice, and we do take some deference with matters before the courts. But one thing is very clear: this Parliament regards itself as supreme, and does have the ability, and reserves the right—and goes to the Governor-General every 3 years to reserve our right—to have free speech. Sometimes we choose not to use it, but we do have the right to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member makes some fair points during that point of order. Obviously—this is not something off the top of my head—I have had good time to consider the applications that are before us, and to assess the status of the legal action that is intended and the subject matter therein. And given the comparatively similar territory of the letters and the appeal that is lodged, I have determined that in this particular instance the debate is out of order according to the Standing Orders.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Orders 112 and 113 you have the discretion to allow the House to have this debate. It is entirely up to the Speaker to decide whether to proceed. You have certain guidance—there is guidance provided on when you are to use that discretion to allow us to have that debate. For example, you have got to balance freedom of speech against the public interest in maintaining confidence in the judiciary. Can you tell the House, because this is a very important matter, what is the basis for your exercising your discretion not to allow us to have the debate?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are a raft of considerations that come in; this is one aspect of it. I have already referred quite specifically to the similarity between the letters of debate and the appeal. There are other issues, such as that the House has already had an urgent debate on this matter. So across the spectrum of all of the considerations that come into forming a decision, the member is quite correct: it is at the discretion of the Speaker. And on this occasion, given all of those reasons, I have determined that it is out of order for the House to have this debate, and, therefore, will not be affording it.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 113 is interesting. I will read it out, because it shows that this is intended to have effect generally in respect of criminal matters, rather than other matters. If we are to be prevented in this House, in the Opposition, from questioning the conduct of Ministers because the Ministers’ conduct is being challenged in a judicial review proceeding, then that seems to me to be outside the protection of what is intended by these Standing Orders, because what we are trying to do is to stop criminal cases, which is what Standing Order 113(1) is mainly about: “in relation to a criminal case, from the moment the law … in relation to cases other than criminal, from the time proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate document”. What we are trying to do is protect third-party interests, not Ministers’ interests, and I would have submitted that it is wrong to use these rulings here to stop us questioning Ministers’ decisions, as opposed to protecting the constitutional rights of people who are not Ministers to have their day in court without being interfered with by us.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) : I think the member is being a little selective, because if he goes on to look at Standing Order 113(1)(b), it talks about matters other than criminal matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are getting very close to questioning the decision that you have made in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank members for their participation. I know that this is an issue of particular interest not only to this House but also to the wider community, and that is why I can assure the House that I gave this very real and earnest consideration. But this would not be a debate about the principle of overseas sale, because the judicial review is of the Ministers’ decision to grant. In that case it gives it a specificity that directly links it to any matters of jurisprudence in the Court of Appeal, and that is the principal reason that I have ruled it out on this occasion. I can earnestly say to members that this is not a seat-of-the-pants decision. I have given this serious consideration.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have adduced this matter. I hope the member is not wanting to traverse material that I have already ruled on.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: My question to you is: you said we had already had an urgent debate on this matter. Could you tell me when that urgent debate happened?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, we have not had an urgent debate, but the matter was debated in the House during—I cannot recall whether it was a general debate, but it has been debated in the House, and I gave some consideration to that.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am going back through my memory, but my memory tells me that Mr Speaker Smith, in ruling earlier, had said that when the decision was made, that would be the appropriate time. I think there was quite a lot of discussion earlier about whether it was appropriate to have a debate, and he said when the decision had been made, it would be. I just hope that you did read his decision and his ruling on that matter before you made this one.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are confined by the fact that we have a decision by Ministers of the Crown and a judicial process in the Court of Appeal. That is what actually confines us.

Kevin Hague: Point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with this matter, Mr Hague.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not intending to relitigate the matters that you have already addressed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. I will listen very carefully.

KEVIN HAGUE: What I am seeking is an answer to the question as to whether it is your ruling that should the judicial review that is about to become under way in fact not alter the decision that has been made by the Ministers, this matter will still fit the requirement of being a Government action of recent occurrence in order to allow urgent debate to be triggered.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Similarly, I cannot predict the nature of the letter that would supply the circumstances at the time. Members know that they can put in a request for an urgent debate at any time, but there are specific criteria that actually apply, so it would depend on that at the time.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for testing your patience, but I think there is an important point, which I am happy if the Minister corrects me on. It is my understanding that this is a matter before the Court of Appeal, and—

Hon Maurice Williamson: It is the High Court. There’s two: there’s the Court of Appeal, and there’s a judicial review in the High Court.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, they have put it in—sorry, I apologise.