Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results

I have received two applications from members. The first is from Mr Jim Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the problems that have emerged with the local body election results. This is the same application, almost, as the one Mr Peters lodged yesterday, and it is not accepted for exactly the same reason. There is no particular case of recent occurrence. Mr Peters has attached a statement released by the Minister of Local Government at 1.29 p.m. on Tuesday—that is, before the House sat, not after it sat, as Mr Peters stated in his letter.

This makes no difference at all to my decision, for two reasons. First, if the particular case had been the Minister’s statement, an application could still have been lodged on Tuesday, even though it was within 1 hour of the House sitting—see Speaker’s ruling 150/4. Secondly, the particular case is not the Minister’s statement; it is the problems with the local body election results. These emerged last Sunday, and the member had plenty of time to raise the matter before the House sat on Tuesday.

I have received a similar application from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. His case referred to a press release on 13 October in which the Minister asked his officials to work with local government to find alternative ways of counting votes in the outstanding elections. This press release also relates back to the problems identified on Sunday. It is now too late for an urgent debate on the matter. It can be explored in other ways. The application is declined.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling, but I am concerned that you said that the difficulties with the voting was discovered on Sunday. In fact, it was on a conference call not until the Monday evening, and a press release after midday on the Tuesday, that that occurred. Having said that, I seek leave of the House, given the seriousness of the issue, for there to be an urgent debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to have a debate. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply want to draw to your attention one matter in relation to these requests for urgent debates. Clearly there is nothing in Standing Order 373 that requires the application to be made on the first sitting day following the event that has occurred. There is nothing there that requires that. The relevant Speaker’s ruling appears to be 153/2. That Speaker’s ruling suggests that if the matter is not raised at the first opportunity, the matter may not be of sufficient importance or urgency to qualify. But that Speaker’s ruling goes on to state that it is not automatically ruled out in such circumstances. So Speaker’s ruling 153/2, which is the most relevant one, makes it very clear that a matter is not ruled out just because it is not raised on the first occasion.

The reason why it is relevant to this case is that when this matter first surfaced, it appeared that there would be a delay of a day or so and the matter would be sorted out. It was not until a subsequent date that it became clear that the matter would not be resolved for some considerable time and that the issue was of far greater significance than appeared to be the case on the first day. That is why that Speaker’s ruling is worded the way it is, and I am concerned that you do not appear, in your ruling, to be taking due consideration of both the Standing Order and that Speaker’s ruling.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising what is a valid point of order, and in the circumstances I want to give this matter some consideration. I certainly do.