Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata

Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the acting leader of the ACT party that ACT’s parliamentary membership has changed, and that Donna Awatere Huata is no longer a member of ACT for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly, under Standing Order 34(3), Donna Awatere Huata is, from 11 November 2003, regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes.

At this point, at least, no question of the member’s seat becoming vacant under the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 arises. That Act sets out certain conditions and procedures under which a member can be expelled from the political party for which he or she was elected. The acting leader of ACT has indicated an intention to invoke that legislation. Whether that is possible is a matter that does not arise at this time.

ACT now has eight members of Parliament. I will therefore consult with the Green and ACT parties about the seating to be occupied by them in the Chamber. The Business Committee will need to reconsider the allocation of questions. I will reconsider the allocation of first and second reading and general debate speaking slots. I expect these matters to be settled by the end of this week. In the meantime the present allocations will continue to run, though the Green Party, now the third largest in the House, will be called ahead of ACT to vote and to speak in debate. Allocations of funding to ACT and to Donna Awatere Huata will need to be readjusted to reflect the new party balances. This is a matter that I will attend to on advice from the Parliamentary Service Commission.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I heard you correctly, you indicated to the House that the Green Party is now the third-largest party in Parliament. I do not believe that is so.

I am sorry. I should have said fourth.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was my point of order. The error was clearly a case of wishful thinking on the part of some people, or a typographical error. But when I get up for a point of order I expect you, if I am asking for one at the same time as another member, to respect the issue of seniority in this House.

Absolutely; I always have.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You didn’t then!

I always have done, except that time. As this ruling involved the ACT party, I felt obliged to call the acting leader of ACT for a point of order first. But I take the member’s point. He is technically correct.