Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of Political Parties

Honourable members, as I indicated to the House yesterday, I wrote to the Hon Peter Dunne concerning the recognition of the United Future party under the Standing Orders, the party having been deregistered by the Electoral Commission. I have now had a chance to consider Mr Dunne’s response. He has given me an assurance that his party expects to file an application for re-registration early next week. The Electoral Commission advises that its checks will take some 6 to 8 weeks to finalise. Once the Electoral Commission has done so, I will revisit the matter. In the meantime, the United Future party remains a recognised party under the Standing Orders.

The consequences of loss of recognition are significant, and I consider I should follow fair and proper process in determining this matter. The member and his party should have a reasonable opportunity to put the matter right.

The 2011 change to Standing Order 34(1) was made to deal with a situation that arose in respect of new parties. It is silent on a party that ceases to be registered under the Electoral Act 1993 during the term of a Parliament and it gives the Speaker no express authority to cease to recognise a party on that basis. However, the Speaker is responsible for ruling when such questions of interpretation or application of the Standing Orders arise and for deciding cases not otherwise provided for in the Standing Orders, which I will do if required. I also intend to raise the matter with the Standing Orders Committee for consideration in its review of the Standing Orders.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am, it is fair to say, very concerned about the ruling that you have just given. In my view, and in the view of others with whom I have consulted, it is very clear that when a party is no longer a party under the Electoral Act, then it is not a party for the purposes of this House. You are absolutely right—it has significant implications. If you go to Standing Order 34, “Recognition of parties”—Standing Order 34(1)—it is all based on Part 4 of the Electoral Act and parties being recognised under that. If parties are not recognised—and Standing Order 35(1) is something that must happen, and I understand Mr Dunne did not comply with Standing Order 35(1). You had to write to him, which is the wrong way round. He should have told you of his change of circumstances.

There are several points that I do want to make. The precedents that I know of are two. One is that of Mr Chris Carter. When Mr Carter left the Labour Party, the recognition happened on that day. There was no question of waiting. On that day the Labour Party was, one, stripped of a vote; two, stripped of funding from whips and the deputy leadership; and, three, stripped of party funding. This decision leaves Mr Dunne with $100,000 over and above his entitlement according to the determination for which you are responsible.

This decision leaves him on the Business Committee, when he should not be a member of that committee according to the Standing Orders of this House. This decision, I presume, will affect the vote this afternoon, when, according to Standing Order 140(1)(a) and (d), he will receive treatment to which he is not entitled. There is no United Future party in this House, and he should be treated in the confidence vote this afternoon as an independent member because he cannot be the member of a party that does not exist, and he accepts that it does not.

I just want to put on the record that I think this is an important test for the Speaker, and I think we have had a decision that is wrong.

It is a very serious matter, and I think it is important that all emotions are laid to one side when discussing these matters. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

It is a point of order, and I do expect to be given the same courtesy that Mr Mallard was. I think the interesting point that Mr Mallard misses is that in the section of the Standing Orders that deals entirely with the proceedings of this House and Parliament, Standing Order 34(1) makes it clear that “Every political party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act”—most certainly—for the “general election or at any subsequent by-election, [where a member may be elected] is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.” You are quite right to say that it is completely silent on the other matters that Mr Mallard raises.

With regard to the analogy with the Hon Chris Carter, he, in fact, chose to leave the Labour Party and, as such, being recognised as an MP, he was able to take with him the resource that is normally collectively applied to a party’s resource. This is not a circumstance like that. The circumstance here is exactly as Standing Order 34(1)—the pre-eminent part of the Standing Order—states. Mr Dunne was elected as a member for the United Future party, a registered party under Part 4 of the Electoral Act at the time of the last general election, and is entitled to be recognised as such.

My point of order—is this microphone going?

💬 Hon Members: No.

My point relates to Standing Order 34(4).

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can’t hear you.

💬 Hon Member: Speak up.

I would like to speak up. Perhaps the chap up there at the studio can organise what is going on. If you look at Standing Order 34(4), it refers to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I am having now is your microphone is not working. It is hard to hear, but I think if the member continues to speak up, I will be able to hear. [Interruption] But I will not be able to hear it if I continue to get interjections from the Labour front bench.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Nobody was—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on a point of order at the moment.

Is this microphone working?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is.

Right, thank you very much. If you look at Standing Order 34(4), it refers to a—[Interruption] Well, I think—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. It will be heard in silence, and if it is heard in silence, I will have no difficulty hearing the member, even if his microphone is faulty.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If you look at Standing Order 34(4), it refers to a “recognised party”. To be a recognised party, that party must be registered. The issue comes down to what is the import or the fact of registration, because it is different from the fact and import of deregistration. To nullify that by saying we are going to wait 6 weeks to find out whether the claim by Mr Brownlee and others is meritorious is, I believe, a false reading of the Standing Orders before you. We have suffered in the past from losing a member: losing outside-of-office facilities, outside-of-office staff, parliamentary leadership funding, and parliamentary secretarial staff as of that day, in the same way that was outlined to you in respect of a former member Mr Carter.

You are saying that, somehow, you can write to Mr Dunne and find out whether he qualifies sometime in the distant future. With respect, the Electoral Commission has told you that United Future is not registered. I believe you should have acted instantaneously, or, even more important, asked whether it made an inquiry over the last year as to whether that registration was, in fact, legitimate or otherwise. But to give the kind of leniency you envisage now on the basis that you have no real precedent to act upon is, I think, erroneous. Standing Order 34(4) talks about a recognised party. United Future has not been recognised from the time of its deregistration.

Sometimes it is said that the law is an ass, but the law is not that stupid an ass that the phrase in Standing Order 34(1) that says “Every political party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act …” is the test. That is the test. The United Future party is not a party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and you know that, and that is the end of the matter. In terms of your jurisdiction, you have jurisdiction to accord funding only to parties that are registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act.

My second point is that Mr Horan is now in the same position as Mr Dunne, and Mr Horan does not get the resources that Mr Dunne gets. How is that fair? That is not correct, and I would call upon you to do your duty.

Order! This is a matter that is serious, but it is also a matter for which there is no precedent. I have decided, after taking advice and giving serious thought to this matter, to allow the member and his party some time to put the matter right. I accept that the points that have been made by Mr Mallard, by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and by the Hon David Parker are made genuinely, but they are, in fact, challenging a ruling that I have made, and that in itself will lead to disorder. I have made my decision—[Interruption] Order! No. I have made my decision. My decision stands. But—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: A new point of order.

If the member wishes to raise a fresh point of order, I will hear it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, for one, would like to see the legal advice you got upon which you constructed—

Order! That is not a fresh point of order. We are now continuing to litigate a decision I have made. This—[Interruption] Order! I do not want to have to ask members to leave the Chamber, but I will if this matter continues to be relitigated today.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order—it is a fresh point of order.

If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The appropriations under which Parliament expends money are very specific, in that no entity or organisation can expend any money unless it is covered by an appropriation. I just want to seek an assurance from you that you have clarified that the relevant appropriations allow you to make the ruling that you have, because if that money continues to be expended and it is not allowed under the appropriations, then the entire House ends up in some very, very great difficulty.

I can give that member his assurance.