Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I now wish to raise a point of order with you. While you have referred to the Privileges Committee the matter of Mr Duynhoven’s eligibility to sit in the House, after reading through the Electoral Act—and I would like you to confirm this—I believe that this is actually a decision for you. You can seek advice from wherever you are, but I want from you an assurance that your referring to the Privileges Committee was not a technique to enable the Government to change the law in the meantime, and that, as Speaker, you will look at the matter and make the decision on the law as it is at the moment, rather than what the law might be after the Government has persuaded us to change it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member an absolute assurance as to that. I agree. I took advice on what to do, was advised, and referred the matter to the Privileges Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you for that remark, and I accept it, but can you also confirm that this is a decision for you to make, not for anyone else?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It depends on the procedures. The Government, of course, can introduce bills if it wishes, but if it does not, then the member is correct.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given what you have just said, I guess we would now seek an assurance from yourself that the issue will be decided strictly in accordance with the law as it stands—not in respect of any bills to be introduced. We have just heard from the Leader of the House that there will be no bills introduced, so I would like you to give us that assurance, because I feel you have left us in some doubt now.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I did not actually hear the Hon Dr Cullen say that, but I can give members the assurance that I will enforce, under section 129 of the Electoral Act, that it is for the Speaker to decide, when satisfied a vacancy exists, the present law.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to get things a bit clearer, because it seems that, in answers to both Mr Prebble’s and Dr Mapp’s points of order, there has come from you a suggestion that you may not be put in a position of having to make that determination, because of some expectation that the Government might be about to change the law. Surely, the situation with regard to Mr Duynhoven exists now, so the question arises: why the long wait?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I decide on the present law—nothing else. I decide on the present law.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my party’s concern as to what your answer was, in respect of Mr Mapp’s question, because, if that is your answer, then by a very unfortunate circumstance, and without recourse for us to have the ability to correct that circumstance, I am bound to say that you are bound to come to a certain decision—which would be very, very adverse for Mr Duynhoven, and which I do not believe—I cannot speak for other members—is fair or right. So in reality, one of the options you must surely keep open for yourself is the capacity of this House to correct the situation by way of retrospective legislation. In which event, sadly, your answer to Mr Mapp cannot stand. All I am asking is, are you prepared to avail yourself of the opportunity to take the decision of the Privileges Committee and Parliament on this matter?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Obviously, I am going to wait until the Privileges Committee reports. I will then consider its report, and consider what has to be done. The Speaker will then make a decision in the light of the Privileges Committee report and on the basis of the law as it exists at the time. I can assure the member that I will follow the law.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is what my concern is. If you follow the law, then, sadly, the result will be inevitable. I want you to tell the House that you are prepared to take advice or direction from other members of Parliament, so that you can act on a law that we might have to pass.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I take direction from the House only when it changes the law. I will uphold the law.