Urgent Debates Declined — Ombudsman’s Report—Investigation into Criminal Justice Sector

I have also received a letter from Simon Power seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Ombudsman’s investigation into issues involving the criminal justice sector. This is a case of recent occurrence and involves administrative responsibility of the Government. The Ombudsman’s report considers the overall operation of the justice system and contains his views and suggestions. The issues are important, but to justify the setting aside of the House’s business there must be an element of urgency; see Speaker’s ruling 165/4. While on occasion the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate, the circumstances must be exceptional where working through the report will take some time; see Speaker’s ruling 166/4. There will be other opportunities for the House to consider these issues, once decisions are made. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank you for your ruling on my request for an urgent debate into the Ombudsman’s report. Of course, I accept that ruling but I would, though, ask for you to clarify that ruling against your ruling following the Ombudsman’s report into the Department of Corrections in relation to the transport of prisoners. That was, of course, a report where you did allow an urgent debate. This report that you considered today was requested by the Prime Minister and had a link to direct ministerial responsibility, unlike that former report, and I wonder whether you could just clarify the circumstances as to why the decline of the request today has been forthcoming, given such a clear example of ministerial responsibility linking it to the Prime Minister’s request for that report in the first instance.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Each application is obviously considered on its merits. I considered this one seriously. As I said, I thought it was important, but looking at the criteria that are required, the application did not fulfil them on this occasion, which is not to say that it may not on another occasion.