Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future

Honourable members, on Wednesday, 12 June I indicated to the House that I would be giving further consideration to the ongoing recognition of the United Future party and how long the party should be given to put right the matter of its registration under the Electoral Act 1993. The matter is still with the Electoral Commission and appears likely to take more time than originally anticipated. The commission is an independent body, and I do not want to influence its decision in any way. However, the time that may be involved creates a level of uncertainty that has the potential to disrupt the business of the House. The House’s longstanding practice is that it does not concern itself with the membership of political parties. Its concern is only for their parliamentary membership. The Speaker takes action only when advised of a change to a parliamentary membership.

I do not believe that this is now a tenable basis on which to proceed, given the 2011 change to Standing Order 34(1) to make it clear that, at the commencement of a Parliament or following any subsequent by-election where a member or members are elected in the name of the party, that party must be registered under the Electoral Act if it is to be recognised. However, when that Standing Order was amended, no consideration was given to the situation of a party losing its registration during the term of Parliament. Standing Orders 34 and 35 do not provide a clear path ahead. Therefore, I intend to deal with this matter under Standing Order 2, which provides that the Speaker “is responsible for ruling whenever any question arises as to the interpretation or application of a Standing Order and for deciding cases not otherwise provided for.”

Registration under the Electoral Act and recognition of a party under the Standing Orders are not the same thing. Registration allows political parties to contest the party vote at the next election and to be considered for an allocation of free time and money to broadcast election advertising. Recognition acknowledges the parliamentary membership of parties elected at the previous election. Recognition provides some benefits in the House, but its greatest significance resides in the fact that it enables a party’s parliamentary membership to receive additional funding. In considering the recognition of a party, the Speaker must balance two fundamental public interests: on the one hand, it is not tenable for a party that cannot reasonably demonstrate its wider representative capacity to continue to be funded; on the other, party representation of community interests expressed at a general election should not be interfered with lightly.

I have given this considerable thought, and have determined that, as from today, the parliamentary membership of the United Future party will no longer be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes. The Hon Peter Dunne will be treated as an independent member for parliamentary purposes. However, if the party subsequently regains its registration, I will revisit the matter of the recognition of its parliamentary membership, on the basis that it is a political party in whose name a member was elected at the 2011 general election. In doing so, I believe I am properly balancing the competing public interests—balancing on one hand the need for openness and transparency in public funding, and on the other hand, party representation as determined by the electorate at the last election. Clearly, Standing Orders 34 and 35 require clarification to provide adequately for the situation the House now faces. A review of the Standing Orders, which will get under way shortly, provides the opportunity to achieve this.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification as to your justification for the operative date of your decision. Second, I want to know whether you have read the letter I wrote to you that recites the salient points of a barrister’s legal opinion on this issue. And, third, we would like to know on what legal, authoritative basis you would be reconsidering this issue should the United Future party, as you put it, regain its membership. Because the fact of the matter is that if it did not have 500 members—and by his own words Mr Dunne said last week that its membership has quadrupled, and on Sunday was now over 1,000, which means he is talking about 250, roughly, when it failed to declare a statutory declaration—I want to know on what legal, authoritative basis or, for that matter, Standing Order you would be reconsidering membership, given that I have also recited to you the case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon and the consequences if people decide to act outside the law of this country.

As I said in my ruling, I will revisit the matter if the party becomes re-registered, and I will consider advice certainly from the Clerk of the House on that occasion. I can give no other information about further advice I may receive at that opportunity. In relation to the second point the member raised of whether I have read the letter that was forwarded from the honourable member this morning—yes, I have. The first point raised in the member’s point of order was what day this becomes effective, and in my ruling I have said that it is effective from today.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a relatively minor point, but will you make clear, as far as the funding is concerned, that there is no question of the backdating of the previously unused funding that I think you have made clear exists?

I will certainly look into that matter, but the decision is effective today, so the funding—the additional funding—ceases from today.