Urgent Debates Declined — Auckland, Local Government Reform—Māori Representation on Auckland Council

I have received a letter from John Boscawen seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s response to the results of the citizens initiated referendum on the question “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. The Government’s response is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, but I am not persuaded that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The test is a high one. There needs to be an element of urgency for the business of the House to be set aside. The response announced includes a review of police and Child, Youth and Family procedures, to be reported back by 1 December 2009; the bringing forward to late September or early October of the delivery of a report on the effect of the law change; and the continued monitoring of the operation of the law.

The setting up of a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. When a review is reported there may be exceptional circumstances that will justify a debate, but, even then, that is not always the case, and members might care to look at Speaker’s ruling 177/1. In the circumstances I do not believe that the business of the House ought to be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.

I have also received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 Cabinet’s decision not to include Māori seats on the new Auckland Council. The decision is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. In considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is required to be reported back to the House by 4 September 2009. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the issue of Māori representation on the new Auckland Council. The application is also, therefore, declined.

I seek leave for the agreement of the House to have such a debate. The whole country is focused on the issues that revolve around Cabinet’s decision on the Māori seats. Of course, normally, Mr Speaker, you would be absolutely right, because legislation is coming before the House. But in submitting the letter I took into account the fact that the decisions that were made yesterday pre-empted that process through the legislature. I wonder whether you have taken that into account.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I must not get into a debate with the member, but, obviously, Governments make all sorts of decisions about legislation they are bringing into the House as a matter of general course, so that is not a matter the Speaker can take into account. Leave has been sought for time to be set aside for that debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.