Urgent Debates Declined — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Minister—Judicial Decision Regarding Use of Powers

I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the High Court ruling that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery stepped outside the legal limits of his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 in making his decision to amend the 1998 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. The manner in which the Minister exercises his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act is undoubtedly an important issue for the House because of the considerable nature of the powers the Act grants.

However, for there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The Minister’s decisions were yesterday set aside by the High Court, and an application for a judicial review granted. There is no ministerial responsibility for a decision of the High Court. The urgent debate procedure is a way of holding the Government to account for matters of recent occurrence. There can be no particular case of recent occurrence in the absence of any further decision by the Minister, which, in all probability, may not be forthcoming until the outcome of the judicial review is known. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am actually seeking your assistance on this, because I am a little unclear. There have been instances where snap debates have been given in the House as a result of a decision of a court. In this particular case, it is a judicial review of a Minister’s decision. The Minister made the decision last year and would not be making another decision in response to the court’s decision, because the court’s decision did not allow aspects of it to be overturned. So certain aspects of it, as I set out in my letter, have been allowed to continue, and they are the developments that are taking place in, I think, three of the particular subdivisions. So there is no need for the Minister to take another step.

The problem is that there was a lot of public controversy surrounding the very extensive powers in the legislation, and I think this Parliament does have a duty to oversee how the legislation is actually operating in practice. I think the Speaker will recall that there was considerable debate, certainly on this side of the House, as to whether we would agree to the legislation going through, which we did, but we feel that the scrutiny is required. So that is why I have put forward the letter.

I do not want to risk the contribution to a debate by a point of order. But the member herself has pointed out that the court has made a certain decision to set aside something, and there is no ministerial decision at the moment. If the Minister had made an immediate decision in response to that, then there would have been, indeed, perhaps a matter for the House to debate urgently. But the court has made a decision simply to set aside a decision of the Minister. The Minister, or the Minister on behalf of the Government, has made no response whatsoever to that, and therefore there is no matter of recent occurrence for this House to have an urgent debate on. That is why the Speaker’s decision is made the way it is.

The member may well be right that there may well be interest in the ongoing powers that the particular Act conferred on the Minister, but that is a matter for debate under normal opportunities when the House has a chance to debate matters. It is not something that requires the House to set aside its business today. And that is the test. The member is asking that the House set aside its business today so that this particular debate can be held. That is a high test that is required, and it sometimes is met, indeed, by the urgency of a matter where there is ministerial responsibility. But in this case there is no particular urgency, because the Government has not actually made any decision that complies with the requirement for it to be a case of recent occurrence.