Hunt Jonathan: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7748] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I promised the House that I would report back to it on two points raised with me at the commencement of the second reading debate. 
The first relates to those provisions of the Electoral Act that require a 75 percent majority before they can be amended. These provisions are identified in section 268 of the Act. Section 55 which is amended by this bill is not one of the reserved provisions. The 75 percent majority requirement therefore has no application to this bill. 
The second point is a more complex issue and it is right that I should give a full response to it. The Electoral Amendment Act 2002 has reposed a duty on the Speaker when the Speaker is satisfied that a vacancy exists to notify that vacancy in the  
Gazette 
 without delay. I do take Dr Mapp’s point that the Speaker is not necessarily the person who decides that a vacancy actually exists. Rather the Speaker is taking the consequential action to fill a vacancy that has already occurred and that could be established as a matter of law independently of any action of the Speaker. After all the Speaker is not given a role under section 55 the vacancy provision. The Speaker is given a role under section 129 the by-election provision. 
It is clear that the Speaker could take a decision to call a by-election without consulting the House at all. This would be contrary to all precedent but it is legally possible. I do not think for one moment that members would feel that any Speaker should act without consulting them if there was a real doubt about whether a vacancy actually existed. I ask members to reflect on whether they would be comfortable about a Speaker doing that. After receiving advice that I should consult the House first before arriving at a decision this was the course that I took. I think that it is reasonable on a Speaker’s behalf for me to defer taking action under section 129 for a short period to hear what the House has to say on such a critical issue as a member’s right to sit in this House. I believe that in doing so I am acting completely within the scope of the duty cast on me by the statute. 
Of course the Privileges Committee inquiry is the most detailed examination of this issue. But select committees report to the House. They are not independent decision-making bodies. My consultation with the House will involve the House’s consideration of the committee’s report. I made this point in my ruling on 23 July and I note that it was endorsed in the committee’s report when it stated on page 5: “... it is still appropriate for the Speaker to refer a question to the Privileges Committee and for the House to consider the committee’s report if there is a real doubt as to whether a vacancy has occurred. The Speaker then makes a judgment that is informed by that parliamentary consideration.” The House’s Standing Orders do give priority to consideration of a Privileges Committee report unlike all other reports and in these circumstances I do not consider that it is unreasonable for me to wait for that consideration to occur before I take action. 
Mr Prebble argues that the House’s consideration of this bill provides sufficient feedback for me to act. Other members have warned that the Speaker should not defer a decision so as to give the Government time to bring in legislation to avoid the consequences of the vacancy. I agree with this latter point. I will not delay for that purpose. But I point out that it has been open to the Government to bring forward this legislation at any time since Mr Duynhoven’s situation became known. There is nothing that peculiarly permits such legislation only now. My actions have proceeded quite independently of the Government’s legislative plans. 
I do not accept Mr Prebble’s suggestion that a debate on this bill substitutes for the House’s consideration of the Privileges Committee’s report especially where that report is guaranteed priority for debate at the House’s next sitting. I have consistently said that it is at that point that I will decide under section 129 whether a vacancy has arisen. I have never hidden this from the House and intend to maintain that course. 
In view of the fact that this is a lengthy ruling I am ensuring that a copy of it will be placed in every member’s bill box and members might like to study it carefully.