Urgent Debates Declined — Skycity, Convention Centre—Terms of Agreement and Legislative Implications

I have received a letter from Metiria Turei seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the agreement between the Crown and Skycity concerning the construction of a convention centre, and various regulatory concessions. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A heads of agreement has been signed and a final agreement is expected to be reached in June. It will require legislation to give it effect. Where a matter will come before the House reasonably soon, in the form of legislation, that is a relevant consideration in considering whether it requires the immediate attention of the House. The test for an urgent debate is a high one. Given that a final agreement is not yet in place, and it will require legislation, I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. There will be other occasions on which the House can debate this matter. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just get some clarity on your decision? Is your decision to decline this application on the basis that legislation may, in time, come before the House, and therefore a debate on the issue can occur then? Is that part of the test that you have applied?

That is exactly right.