🧪 EXPERIMENTAL / ALPHA — this is an independent prototype, not an official record. Data may be incomplete or wrong - always check the linked Hansard source before relying on it.
Hot Air

Thursday, 14 April 2022

Urgent Debates Declined — Supreme Court—Extradition Judgment

HansardID: 3dcfe369-a823-4265-ad6d-6944132c58ff
Back to debates
🗣️ Speech Adrian Rurawhe (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Te Tai Hauāuru)
Time unknown

I have received a letter from Brooke van Velden seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 an extradition decision by the Minister of Justice following a judgment of the Supreme Court. Under our system of Government, the decision of a court is not a matter for which any Minister of the Crown has responsibility, Speakers’ ruling 202/3. The Minister of Justice’s decision on this matter, which—Order! I’m on my feet, for those people talking. The Minister of Justice’s decision on this matter, which has been reinstated by the court was made in 2016. The Minister has not made any further decisions on the matter. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred recently; it is not a means of debating matters that occurred many years ago or that might occur in the future, Speakers’ ruling 205/3. Therefore, the application is declined.

🗣️ Speech Brooke Van Velden (ACT New Zealand — List Member)
Time unknown

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My letter about the urgent debate application was specifically not about the court making its ruling but about the fact that the court has now remitted that back to the Minister of Justice and asked the Minister of Justice to reconsider that issue.

💬 Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t really need the help, but Chris Bishop.

🗣️ Speech Chris Bishop (New Zealand National Party — List Member)
Time unknown

Isn’t the point, sir, that there has to be a ministerial decision and there is no ministerial decision, so I don’t see what the issue is.

🗣️ Speech Adrian Rurawhe (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Te Tai Hauāuru)
Time unknown

Yes, that’s exactly correct and that was the ruling. So my ruling has been made on the matter. If the Minister were to make a decision, that might be considered debateable and it might have been considered debateable at the time the decision was made, but it was made in 2016.

🗣️ Speech David Seymour (ACT New Zealand — Member for Epsom)
Time unknown

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hope we’re not going to debate this, Mr Seymour, so be careful. Point of order, David Seymour.

In the hope of being helpful, it’s a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility—

🗣️ Speech Adrian Rurawhe (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Te Tai Hauāuru)
Time unknown

No, that’s—no, no, no. That is definitely unhelpful.

🗣️ Spoke in this debate (4)