Urgent Debates Declined

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I have received a letter from the Hon Phil Goff, Leader of the Opposition, seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement on the preferred option for the Waterview Connection.

Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence, the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must have occurred when the application is lodged. Standing Order 380(1) requires the application to be lodged 1 hour before the House sits, but gives the Speaker discretion to allow a lesser period of time where the event occurs within 1 hour of the sitting of the House. However, the event must have occurred before the House meets. An announcement made after the House sits at 2 p.m. does not give grounds for a debate at that sitting. As I said yesterday, this does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the attention of the House. It simply does not meet the requirements of the urgent debate procedure today.

I have received a similar application from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate the Government’s announcement that it will announce the preferred route for the Waterview Connection at 3 p.m. today. Not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate, particularly not one made on a previous sitting day that an announcement of an actual decision is to be made at some time in the future. Both applications are accordingly declined.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter, not only for the Opposition—and that is why we have written to you 2 days in a row now on the matter—but also for the communities affected by this decision. This is the only opportunity the House will have to address this matter. The House is about to go into urgency, and there will be no question time tomorrow, when the executive might be called to account. Your letter yesterday—

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

The member is actually questioning a ruling of the Speaker. Occasionally these urgent debate matters are finely balanced decisions, if you like, but the Standing Orders rule this one out because the event that the members seek to debate has not occurred. Forgive me, that event might have occurred by now, but it had not occurred by 2 o’clock this afternoon, and the Standing Orders leave the Speaker no discretion on that basis. In the member’s own application, the announcement that he referred to was made on a previous sitting day, so the opportunity to debate that was gone. The issue that he wished to debate was the Government’s announcement that it would announce something, but that application should have come in yesterday.

Whether an announcement that an announcement will be made is of sufficient moment to take precedence in the business of the House is certainly an on-balance issue. But that opportunity was lost, because the announcement was made on the previous sitting day. Today these have not been on-balance decisions at all. The Standing Orders simply do not provide for an urgent debate today. Of course, as has been pointed out, there is a general debate now.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider an application from the Opposition for an urgent question. The announcement was meant to be made at 3 o’clock. There are no details available about it yet, which is convenient enough in itself. I ask whether you would consider an urgent question from the Opposition to the Minister of Transport when the decision is made.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I seek leave for there to be an urgent debate led by the Leader of the Opposition on the Government’s decision not to build tunnels at Waterview.