Urgent Debates Declined — Christchurch City Council—Building Consent Authority Accreditation

I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 a local authority being stripped of its building consent authority accreditation while a range of Government agencies failed to address the need to intervene prior to accreditation being revoked. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to be debated. There is no direct ministerial responsibility for the Christchurch City Council’s failure to respond adequately to the concerns of International Accreditation New Zealand. The responsibility for the fact that accreditation is to be revoked lies with the Christchurch City Council. I acknowledge that the Government has a general power to revoke accreditation, but that does not render this particular revocation a matter of direct Government responsibility. Further, the absence of action on the part of the Government has long been held not to be a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised under Standing Order 386. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that might or might not occur as a result of meetings involving Government Ministers announced for later this week.