Speaker’s Rulings — Parliamentary Membership—ACT New Zealand

Honourable members, last week the leader of the ACT party raised a point of order as to the implications for ACT’s parliamentary membership of a Court of Appeal judgment on the use of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 to remove Donna Awatere Huata from Parliament. The court has held that at this stage there are no grounds for removing Mrs Huata under the legislation. The Court of Appeal’s judgment has no effect on ACT’s parliamentary membership. Parliamentary membership is determined entirely under the House’s own internal rules—its Standing Orders. Since the ACT leader’s advice to me under Standing Order 35 on 11 November 2003 that Mrs Huata had ceased to be a member of ACT, ACT’s parliamentary membership has been eight members, and that is where it remains today.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That ruling does have some bearing, of course, on what actions we might take. Am I to understand that in terms of Parliament we have eight MPs and our proportion is eight, but that, according to the courts, we actually have not lost any proportion; that we are dealing with two worlds: one world where we have eight MPs and are treated accordingly; and another world—the courts’—where we have nine?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not concerned with the courts; I am concerned with Parliament only.