Urgent Debates Declined — Stadium—Proposed Location, Auckland

I have received a letter from Keith Locke MP seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the proposed waterfront stadium in Auckland. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, for there to be a particular case of recent occurrence, and an event upon which an urgent debate must have occurred. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government to account for its decisions. The announcement from the Minister for the Rugby World Cup on the stadium in Auckland is part of a decision-making process requiring input from Auckland City and regional councils over the next 2 weeks. No decision has yet been made by the Government, only an announcement that a decision is required. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence. This does not mean the matter is not of sufficient import to require the attention of the House; it simply does not meet the requirement of an urgent debate procedure at this time. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned about the fact that we have an issue, and there is some discretion here for having an urgent debate. The Government has made a decision in the sense that this site is its preferred option, and it has given Auckland City 2 weeks to make up its mind. We now have, it seems to me, the absurd situation where the whole country is debating the stadium, its merits, the options, and the situation, yet we are unable to have that debate in Parliament. Maybe we could word the request better for tomorrow or the next day, but it does seem to me a difficult situation for our Parliament. There is this whole debate consuming the country about what the Government is up to and what the Government has done, yet we are denied the opportunity to have such a debate in Parliament.

I reinforce the points that Mr Hide has made because the debate he refers to that is taking place across the country, and particularly in Auckland, has a context of what this Parliament will decide in terms of authorising legislation, overriding the Resource Management Act, etc. The people of Auckland and the people of the country deserve to know Parliament’s position on these matters. How can they make an informed decision otherwise?

Your decision is final on these debates. They are not subject to challenge by points of order or, indeed, by any other form. Mr Locke has almost just counted himself out by pointing out that if a decision is made at least in one direction, and we have already had support from the National Party for legislation on Eden Park, that would be debatable by means of legislation. The fact that there is wide public debate is, I am afraid, irrelevant. There was wide public debate about the lineage of a member of the Kiwis rugby league team only a week or so ago, which clearly did not, at least as far as I know, involve any member of the House.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their comments.