Urgent Debates Declined — Trans-Pacific Partnership—Negotiations

I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 a recent declaration by the High Court that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. For there to be an urgent debate, there must be an administrative or ministerial responsibility or the case must be of recent occurrence. The member, in his application, cites the judgment of the High Court issued on 24 July as the particular case of recent occurrence. 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 it is sought to debate. A decision of the High Court is not a matter for which any Minister has responsibility. The application is therefore declined.

I have also received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. For an urgent debate to be granted, there must be a particular case of recent occurrence. Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been continuing since at least 2010. An ongoing event is not a particular case of recent occurrence. The application is therefore declined.