Urgent Debates Declined — Trans-Pacific Partnership—Conclusion of Negotiations

I have received a letter from David Clark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement about the disestablishment of jobs at the Crown research institute AgResearch. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The announcement on 24 September was that AgResearch was consulting on a proposal to disestablish jobs and that the decision on the proposal will be made at the end of October. The announcement of a consultation process on a proposal does not warrant the setting aside of the business of the House. Therefore, the application is declined.

I have also received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s announcement that it has concluded negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I understand that the text of the agreement is to be released to the public. Before the agreement is ratified it will be subject to the parliamentary treaty examination process set out in Standing Orders 397 to 400. I understand that legislation is also required to give effect to the agreement, which will again give opportunity for parliamentary debate. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is a significant agreement, which should be debated by this House. There will be opportunity for parliamentary consideration of it in the future, with the benefit of the text of the agreement and the national interest analysis. I am not convinced that at this stage the business of the House ought to be set aside to debate the matter.