Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results

I have received a letter from Jim Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the problems that have emerged with the local body election results. These problems were apparent yesterday, and if the member had wished to suggest an urgent debate he should have raised the matter then. In these circumstances there is no case of recent occurrence that would be grounds for an urgent debate today. The request is denied.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I to conclude that in the worst botch-up of local government elections in the whole history of this country, you are not allowing a debate?

All the member can conclude is that he did not comply with the Standing Orders, which I have to administer. The Standing Order has been in existence, ever since I have been in this House, for 38 years. It has not changed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This situation is not sorted out now, on Wednesday, which makes it far worse than not being sorted out on Monday or Tuesday.

The member is just compounding the issue. I have ruled. There is no case because the matter should have been raised yesterday. An urgent question was raised by Dr Smith. I said that although it was not strictly urgent, I realised it was a serious point, and I allowed it to be raised at that time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might give us some indication of how you view changing circumstances in these matters. What is very evident today is that rather than being a problem that might be sorted out in a matter of hours, or perhaps in a day or two, this is now a problem that, by Datamail’s own admission, will take some weeks to sort out.

As I said before, it will leave major cities without any governance and it will leave every hospital board in the country without governance. It is likely to lead to special legislation in the House either to cover that situation or to validate elections in some way, or in fact to have new elections. I think it is difficult for us in Opposition to know when it is an appropriate time to put in a letter, given that the situation is moving so very fluidly, but, most certainly, the House should have a view on this matter.

Members can get an urgent debate on only a particular occurrence, not a continuing issue. We are about to enter into a general debate, where I notice all parties will be represented. They can speak about whatever they like.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to refer you to Standing Order 373, which deals with the issue of applications for urgent debates. That Standing Order requires that a written statement must be made 1 hour prior to the day’s sitting, which would have been 2 o’clock. Given that the Minister’s press release came out after that time, it would have been practically impossible for any member of this House to meet the Standing Order for an urgent debate to be lodged yesterday—plainly impossible—so I seek some clarification. Is the reason for your declining the debate because you do not see it as urgent, and that is perfectly within your discretion, or is it that we should have done it yesterday, which would have been impossible?

The answer to the second part of the question is that it would not have been impossible because I could accept the letter any time, if there was a particular circumstance. That is why I, of course, accepted the member’s urgent question—I thought there was a particular case, even though that was not the advice I was given. I took responsibility for accepting that urgent question. As far as I am concerned this issue is one that I have ruled on.