Points of Order — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of Political Parties

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to the Standing Orders Committee report 2011, and, in particular, the new Standing Orders 34 and 35, which go to the recognition of parties. I will be relatively brief, because I know it will be a matter you are thinking about and you may want to come back to. Standing Order 34(1) goes to the registration of parties and the requirement for them to be registered. Standing Order 34(2) goes to members who cease to be members of a party for which they were originally elected. I tend to say the mirror image of that would be members of Parliament who become members of parties that are no longer registered under the Electoral Act. But, really, the most important Standing Order here is Standing Order 35, and under 35(1)(c) a party must inform the Speaker of its parliamentary membership.

It has become apparent through the news media that the United Future party no longer is a party registered under the Electoral Act. It is my submission to you that there is an obligation on Mr Dunne to inform you of that and then for you to inform the House of that, because there are flow-on things that happen to do with the order of the House, like questions and other matters. It may be that the National Party can cover Mr Dunne as far as his front-bench seat is concerned. That is something that it can grant in terms of one of its spots. But my request is how you are proceeding with this matter, which has the potential to be a matter of order.

The Hon Trevor Mallard raises an obviously interesting and topical point. You will recall that these changes were made to the Standing Orders at the conclusion of the last Parliament and were trying to tidy up circumstances that had come about through preceding Parliaments, most notably the Parliament between 1999 and 2002. It seems to me that when you are making your considerations around these matters, it is Standing Order 34(1) that needs to be most focused on, where it does appear to have quite a bit of clarity at the present time by stating that if a person is elected at a preceding general election or any subsequent by-election under a party banner, then that party is entitled to be recognised. What I think the rest of it does is try to work out what happens if there are groups of MPs who defect from their party, as we saw between 1993 and 1996 and then again between 1999 and 2002, and form into new groupings and then desire to be recognised by the House. The condition then would be that there is a party formed outside the House recognised by the Electoral Commission. I think the salient point is that if a party has MPs coming into the House and is recognised because they were registered prior to the election where those people were returned to the House, then that would seem to me to prevail for the entire term of the Parliament.

To the member—I mean, I agree with the background. The unsatisfactory position when the Alliance broke up, I think, caused this, although there were some New Zealand First defectors where there was not quite the same problem. But we did have previously what might be described as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, and what this did in Standing Order 35(1) was to place a requirement on the member to inform you of a change in circumstances, and my submission is that Mr Dunne should have done that already.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear briefly from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

I would prefer if you called me Gerry Brownlee, actually.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Sorry—I withdraw and apologise, absolutely and immediately! I hope I will be forgiven.

There are some identity crises I would willingly engage in, but that is not one of them. The point made by the Hon Trevor Mallard was that there was at the conclusion of the Parliament that ended in 1999 a breakup of the New Zealand First Party, and there was also a breakup of the Alliance during that time, and there were, in the end, some 17 independent MPs who had their votes cast vote by vote—a most interesting situation. Although there were a number of parties that were formed out of that that contested the 1999 general election, the real point is that a party has to be registered prior to an election to be recognised for parliamentary purposes in Parliament, and you would assume that that would continue for the period that the party was elected. That is my simple point.

With respect—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, real experience.

Yes, well, experience is important. First of all, there was, of course, a significant desertion from the National Party between 1993 and 1996, but I do not want to labour on that. My real point is that Mr Gerry Brownlee’s proposition is certainly not a meritorious one. It has the same effect of somebody holding a passport whose country ceases to exist. That person becomes Stateless. If a party member in here no longer has a party that is outside there under the Electoral Act, then he ceases to be a leader of that political party. Mr Brownlee is asking you to say that something is set in stone as of the last election day. I think, sadly for Mr Brownlee, because he usually tries to be informed in these matters, he is wrong this time.

I thank all three members for their contributions. For the first time, a party that is recognised under the Standing Orders has ceased to be registered under the Electoral Act 1993. Recognition and registration are quite different things. Registration concerns the general membership of a political party; recognition concerns the parliamentary membership of a party. In general, the House is not concerned with the membership of political parties; it concerns itself with parliamentary membership of parties that are recognised for parliamentary purposes. But since 2011, the Standing Orders have required a party in whose interest a member was elected at a general election or a subsequent by-election to be registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 if it is to be recognised by the Speaker for parliamentary purposes.

Where public funds are involved, there needs to be transparency and accountability. There needs to be some certainty about the arrangements behind a party that seeks to be recognised for parliamentary purposes. This is what the requirement for registration under the Electoral Act achieves. The United Future party was recognised at the commencement of this Parliament. Parties are recognised by informing the Speaker of their leadership, office holders, and memberships, and any changes thereto. As of yesterday, I have written to Mr Dunne concerning the ongoing registration of the United Future party, and I will await a response to that letter before I further consider the matter.