Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the requirement that the Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance must reconsider their decision to approve Milk New Zealand’s application to buy the Crafar farms as a result of a decision of the High Court on 15 February 2012 and the outcome and effects of the decision on current Government policy.  
The urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account for matters that have actually occurred. It is not a means of debating something that may occur in the future. There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court as I pointed out to the House yesterday so there is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court requiring that the Ministers’ decision be reconsidered. As that reconsideration has not yet happened there is no particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised today. The application is therefore declined.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not to in any way challenge what you have just said but yesterday in your comments about a similar application made for an urgent debate you said that there were grounds you could envisage for an application being made but they were not the grounds that were laid out in yesterday’s application. That being the case—I am not certain of what Dr Norman drafted—I know that our application was drafted not on the basis of what the court had said because no Minister is responsible for what the judge might do but on the results of that which left the policy void on a matter that is highly political and of great public interest. That is why our application was phrased that way. That said you have ruled it out. But are there any grounds at all on which such an application could be successful given what you said yesterday which sounded like an invitation to lodge an application today? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the right honourable gentleman’s points and it is a fair point of order. The grounds that I envisage would be if the Ministers made a very prompt decision to do something because that would be a case of recent occurrence. But the case must be something that is the responsibility of a Minister and as the right honourable member points out the decision of the judge is not the responsibility of the Minister. The member did put some effort into trying to frame an application to try to bring it to meet the Standing Orders—and I compliment him on that—but it does require a case of recent occurrence involving a Government Minister and that has not happened yet. That was what I envisaged might happen and it has not happened yet.