Mallard Trevor; Rurawhe Adrian; Seymour David; Bishop Chris; Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDParliamentary Precinct—Issuance of Trespass NoticesSPEAKER: Members for reasons which might become obvious I have delegated the response to an urgent debate application to the Deputy Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the issuance of trespass notices to a number of people who were present at the recent protest at Parliament. The member rightly notes that it is in the Speaker's power to issue trespass notices relating to the parliamentary precinct. An urgent debate may only be held if the matter involves the ministerial or administrative responsibility of the Government—Standing Order 399(2)(b). The Speaker is not a member of the Government and the actions of the Speaker cannot be the subject of an urgent debate. I refer the member to Speaker's ruling 201/6 which states that an urgent debate is not a vehicle for addressing matters that are the responsibility of the Speaker." In addition Speaker Carter gave an extensive ruling on this issue on December 6 2016 which the member may find useful. The application is declined.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order Mr Speaker. Look I find myself in a very difficult position because the letter referred not to the Speaker but to the Parliamentary Service and its security team who are under the responsibility of the Minister for the Parliamentary Service who is a Minister of the Crown. My letter did not refer to the Speaker. People at home don't know that because no one else has seen the letter but I want to put that on record because I think people deserve to know that when they hear that ruling.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just in response and further to the actual ruling I again encourage the member to look at the ruling by Speaker Carter. As I said he made an extensive ruling on the matter. There's a clear difference between a Minister that has been appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and sworn in by the Governor-General and the Speaker who has been elected by this House who also has for the purposes of the Public Finance Act ministerial responsibilities in certain areas. That does not make the Speaker a member of the Government. The purpose of—[Interruption] Yeah I'm going to ask Mr David Bennett to stop interrupting while I'm on my feet giving a ruling; this is a really important matter so no more. As I was saying that does not make the Speaker of the House a member of the Government so I encourage members to read that ruling by Speaker Carter.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for a special one-hour debate to happen forthwith with the allocation of times and calls in the debate to follow the ordinary general debate speaking order as per Wednesday 5 May today.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you run that by me again? I want to know what the—CHRIS BISHOP: I seek leave for a special debate to take place right now on the actions of the Speaker and parliamentary security with the allocation of calls to follow the ordinary general debate calls as would take place this Wednesday.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm going to take some advice on that. Yep I'm not going to put that leave. That is out of order—I'm upon my feet; don't interrupt me while I'm making this ruling. If you think about every urgent debate in this House the Minister responsible has a right to reply. The Speaker can never reply and so that's actually out of order and I'm not going to put that leave. And I'm not going to entertain any arguments about it either.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm just seeking leave. The question of whether leave is granted is a question for the House. Mr Speaker I put it to you you should put the leave question. It's over to the Government to deny leave—or any other member of this House the 120 MPs. But I'm seeking leave for the House to debate a serious matter that is not allowed to be debated through the urgent debate process—and I accept that ruling as requested by Mr Seymour. I'm just seeking leave for the House to have a one-hour debate on a very serious matter.DEPUTY SPEAKER: And the way forward—as the member has done in previous occasions—is a motion on notice.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker it's interesting that you suggest that the member might progress things by way of a notice of motion. In the end a notice of motion succeeds either because it comes up on the Order Paper or the House grants leave for it. Now the point is that if the member were to put that notice of motion onto the Order Paper it would be the same intent the same wording and the same desire to have a debate that would be expressed in the leave being requested of the House today. It seems to me that it is fundamentally a decision to stop the House investigating something that might be important to it—the House's decision in the end—when in fact there is no reason for that to occur. The advice that's been given is effectively counter to the decision not to accept the leave.DEPUTY SPEAKER: My response to that and to Mr Bishop is that Mr Bishop could seek leave to debate a motion but he cannot seek the leave for the special debate.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I seek leave for the urgent debate I sought to take place forthwith and in addition—to overcome your earlier objection—for the Speaker to have a 15 minute right of reply at the end of it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. That's just reinterpreting the letter the ruling and my subsequent responses and that's not going to happen.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice relating to the holding of an urgent debate forthwith relating to the Speaker and the actions of Parliamentary Service security.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be."