Urgent Debates Declined — Ministerial Resignation—Minister of Police

Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Mark Mitchell seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 an allegation of interference in a police prosecution. The making of allegations is not a particular case for which there is a ministerial responsibility—Speaker’s rulings 201/2 and 205/6. If Mr Mitchell wishes to pursue his allegations then the appropriate mechanism is through parliamentary questions. Therefore, the application is denied.

I have also received an application from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the resignation of the Hon Stuart Nash as police Minister. An application for urgent debate can be lodged up to the time the House sits. This application was received at 2.14 p.m. and is therefore declined. If something occurs after the time the House sits, the application can be lodged for consideration on the next sitting day, so that’s still available.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I also submitted a letter much earlier today. It would seem that you are not considering that letter because you have preferred my later one, even though my later one was invalid, which seems that if you rejected the acceptance of my later letter at 2.14 p.m., you should go back to considering my first one.

💬 SPEAKER: The application, the cover letter of the second application, said it replaced the original.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Order! I’m going to take points of order in silence. I’ll go to David Seymour.

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: That may be so, however that was on the basis that Standing Order 399 says the Speaker can use their judgment to accept a letter. Given that you haven’t accepted it on the basis it was too late, surely you have to disregard that and revert to the earlier letter.

Point of order.

OK. I’ll hear it, but I’m prepared to rule.

💬 CHRIS BISHOP: We are in a position of difficulty, because at the time that letters from the ACT Party and the National Party were submitted to you, Mr Nash was a Minister, and any—

💬 Hon Member: He still is.

💬 CHRIS BISHOP: Well, he still is a Minister, but he was still Minister of Police at the time. But public coverage of the incident that I think we’re all referring to referred to allegations. Now, you have ruled—fair enough—that allegations are not a matter of ministerial business and therefore can’t be subject to an urgent debate. Mr Nash has now resigned as a Minister, and I put it to you that it is in the public interest that notwithstanding that happened after 2.00 p.m., which is to comply with Standing Order 399, letters have to be in by that time. I put it to you that it is clearly in the public interest, and I ask you to use your discretion to order an urgent debate forthwith.

I’ll go back to my original ruling. It was based on the information on the second application that the first one was removed. If it had not been removed, I would have made the same ruling that I made on the Hon Mark Mitchell’s application.

Point of order.

Is it a new point of order?

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, there is a genuine problem here that you’ve refused to consider the first letter on the basis of the second one that you ruled wasn’t submitted in time, so you can’t count it.

No, that’s not—

💬 DAVID SEYMOUR: So you count my second letter for the basis of nullifying my first one, but not for the basis of actually considering it, which, if you had, you almost would have certainly granted, because it’s a resignation of a Minister. So there is a logical problem here where there is no logical way that a member in my position can actually have their debate considered.

Well, basically what I’m ruling is that a member can withdraw the application at any time up until I’ve made the ruling. Now, in my mind, that has been done.

💬 David Seymour: You said it was too late.

This will be the end if you keep interrupting me while I’m on my feet. That means that that application had been removed. The second application, as I ruled, is declined because it was after the time, but is still available. The issue is for the next sitting day.