Use of urgency

Will your Party commit to explicitly excluding the use of urgency provisions on matters that affect fundamental human rights (e.g. the right to democratic participation and NZ’s UN obligations, including CEDAW) except in genuine cases of emergency (natural disaster, war, pandemic)?

ACT

Greens

Yes. The Green Party has been firmly against the current Government’s use of urgency to undermine time for public input and proper scrutiny and would not continue this usage of urgency.

Labour

The National-led Government has set new records for the use of parliamentary urgency – Labour is concerned that in many cases this has been used to avoid public scrutiny – most egregiously with the National-led Government’s decision to push through pay equity changes under urgency, and without a select committee process.

Labour is committed to judicious use of parliamentary urgency in a way that does not bypass or inhibit select committee scrutiny other than in cases of genuine emergency.

National

NZ First

Under Principle 15, New Zealand First commits that major policy changes not outlined in the party manifesto must be referred to the public for a mandate. The party strongly opposes unnecessary legislative urgency, advocating for binding referenda and open, transparent democratic processes.

Opportunity

Yes. Urgency should be reserved for genuine emergencies where there is a compelling need for legislation to be enacted without the normal parliamentary process, such as a natural disaster, war or pandemic.

Te Pāti Māori

Te Pāti Māori will not use urgency to reduce fundamental human rights.