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

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to give a considered ruling, and I am going to ask you to review your ruling of last week with regard to the presence of the leadership—whether or not Peter Dunne is recognised as a leader of a party. I do so in light of the revelations that have become apparent today from the Electoral Commission, where it has indicated that United Future will be treated as a new party for registration and it will not be a matter of re-registration. My view is that that certainly casts a different light around 34(1) and 34(4) in the Standing Orders.

The second point that I would like to make, which comes out of there, is that the president of the United Future party has said that the commission’s requirements are too difficult for any party, because it will require signatures as opposed to the electronic methods that are used for a re-registration process. The question I have got is whether you are prepared to wait until they have gone all the way around their members to get the written signatures from those people as opposed to using electronic methods, because that will extend the time. But the most important question is whether, when the party is clearly not re-registering but being treated as registering for a first time—which is not how we understood it last week—your ruling can be reconsidered.

Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Are you speaking to the same point of order?

I am. New Zealand First also seeks for you to review your 6 June decision. Just to quote you briefly, you said: “He has given me an assurance that his party expects to file an application for re-registration early next week.” If you go to the comments by, first, the Electoral Commission and also the president of United Future, Robin Gunston, he has affirmed, in his own words, “the registration of a brand new party,” is being sought. In his words again, it is “not one just de-registered”. Then he goes on to say: “for a new party registration, [they] will only accept”—and that is what the Electoral Commission, which is the statutory body that is applying this law, has said. Then you will be reminded that you said that you were giving the party time to sort itself, but your purpose at the time was to find that they were re-registering. Demonstrably, this is not new. The Electoral Commission, though, has made it patently clear how the law applies, and on that basis I am asking you to review your decision, because the party called United Future does not exist.

Notwithstanding those pleadings from the two previous speakers, it is a fact that the recognition of parties in Parliament by the Speaker and in the Standing Orders is quite separate from the requirements of a political party to become registered under the Electoral Act.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Nonsense.

That is patently clear for anyone who is capable of reading, Mr O’Rourke. If we were to take the—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

It is also a point established by previous Speakers from quite some time back. Standing Order 34(1) makes it clear that if a party is registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and then a member is elected to Parliament from that party, they are entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes. All of this was gone through in 2002. I think the suggestions that you need to now change your mind, Mr Speaker, because of a statement either from the Electoral Commission or from the president of the party does not take away from the fact that your prime responsibility is to ensure that members are treated fairly according to the Standing Orders.

Speaking to Mr Brownlee’s contribution, the problem in respect of Mr Brownlee’s interpretation of Standing Order 34(1) is that it asserts that the words inside the commas add to the breadth of the primary part of the clause. In my respectful submission, that cannot be the case. The Standing Order absolutely says that to be entitled to be recognised as a political party for parliamentary purposes, you must be a party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993. That is the common-sense and clear interpretation of that clause, and it would, with respect to Mr Brownlee, be a nonsense to interpret it otherwise. What he tries to do is say that the words inside the commas, which effectively say “Well, you’ve got to be elected for this rule to apply.”, somehow extend the definition beyond registered political parties. That, with respect, Mr Speaker, is a nonsense. So I agree with the submission from my colleague Mr Mallard that on the basis of this latest determination you should re-determine your earlier finding.

I do not think the member who just spoke can reasonably leave out the qualification in Standing Order 34(1), which is “elected at the preceding general election”. That, Mr Speaker, was the position that was taken by the Speaker back in 2002 when you had Mr Anderton’s Alliance breaking up. You had Mr Grover, who claimed to be the leader of the Liberal Party, in fact, recognised as an Independent. You had the Green Party members, at that time, also recognised as Independents because the Green Party was part of the Alliance at the preceding election and not elected as the Green Party.

💬 Hon David Parker: But they were registered parties.

No, they were not recognised in Parliament, even though they were registered outside.

Order! I have heard sufficient to rule on this matter as at the moment. As I gave a ruling last week, I have interpreted that we are charting new waters in the fact that we had a party that was recognised at the start of this Parliament, legitimately and according to the Standing Orders, that then has subsequently become deregistered. So I am treading carefully, in that we are charting new waters. The second point I want to make is that when I ruled last week, I was expecting a timetable of 6 to 8 weeks. I am watching current developments that may extend that time line, and may potentially extend it substantially. On that basis, I will certainly give consideration to the points that have been raised, particularly by the Hon Trevor Mallard, and I will come back to the House when I have done so.