Points of Order

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Through the media I understand that you have granted, using Standing Order 156(4), permission for the Labour Government to cast Taito Phillip Field’s vote while he is not within the precincts of Parliament. If that is correct, I am interested in the reasons why that would be the case, because, to the best of my knowledge, Taito Phillip Field is not on parliamentary business—I know he does a lot of business, but it is not of a parliamentary nature—

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I thank the member. I think the first point to note is that I have not granted the Labour Party anything, but I have, in fact, exercised the jurisdiction I have under the Standing Orders in terms of proxy. But I understand the point the member raises, and for the interests of the House I shall give a ruling on the matter.

As members are aware, party voting was introduced in 1996. It was soon appreciated that special arrangements needed to be made for parties consisting of one member and for Independent members of Parliament. Effectively, these had to be exempted from the general requirement to have a member present in the Chamber. From 1996 to 1999 there were, in fact, no requirements on Independent members at all. They could have proxy votes recorded for them regardless of where they were. In 1999 the present rule set out in Standing Order 156(4) was introduced. A proxy for an Independent member can be exercised only if the member is within the precincts, absent on select committee business, absent on other business approved by the Business Committee, or absent with the permission of the Speaker. In the case of the latter, the Speaker’s permission may be granted for illness or other family cause of a personal nature, or to enable the member to attend any other public business, whether in New Zealand or overseas.

Since that provision was introduced, three members have been given general approvals by the Speaker to have their votes cast by proxy in their absence: the Hon Peter Dunne in 2000, Tariana Turia in 2004, and the Hon Jim Anderton in 2005. I have given an approval to Taito Phillip Field in exactly the same terms as those approvals. Once the member has been given the approval it is for the member to judge whether the condition applies entitling him or her to have a proxy vote regarded. If, for example, there is no family illness, and the member is not attending to other public business, whether in New Zealand or overseas, the member should notify the person who holds the proxy that it is not to be exercised while that state of affairs continues. But no member has to account to the Speaker for how he or she uses their time away from this House.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is of crucial importance because we know and believe that legislation will be before this House where the casting of this vote could make the difference between the legislation passing or not proceeding. It seems to me that we do have a problem. I can understand perfectly with the Hon Peter Dunne, the honourable Tariana Turia, and the Hon Jim Anderton, because all three were actually on parliamentary business. But we know that Taito Phillip Field is not on parliamentary business. I also understand that he is not ill. You are telling this House that if he does not fit those categories, his vote cannot be exercised if he is not here. Now the difficulty that we have is that in Parliament a piece of legislation could be hanging on that vote, the vote gets cast, but we are not certain whether, in fact, the criteria for Taito Phillip Field have been met, because we do not know the reason you have granted it. I think you have to be particularly specific and send a very strong message to this particular member that if he does not fit the category that you have set, which I guess has to be family cause of a personal nature, or illness, his vote cannot be cast unless he is here.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this

This is an interesting matter but is one, of course, that does not apply to just Independent members; it applies to all members of the House. The criteria are not just for Independent members but apply to the exercise of a proxy vote on behalf of a party member, including, of course, that member who was absent all week from the House. He was absent on, as we know, business of a personal nature all that week, not public business.

The second point to make is that public business has a very wide interpretation—it is not parliamentary business; it is public business. It is Standing Orders 156(4)(b) and 155(4)(c) that refer to parliamentary business. It is Standing Order 156(4)(d)(ii) that relates to public business. In the case of members who are not independent members, their proxy votes are cast on their behalf by their whips, or a person acting on behalf of the whip, on the basis of leave granted by the whip—although, strictly speaking, that is with the permission of the Speaker, because it is understood that permission of the Speaker is operated by delegation to the party whips in that case. There is a very longstanding understanding in this House that members do not ask whether that has been properly exercised by the whips. I invite the member Rodney Hide to think very carefully about what would happen if, every time a proxy vote was cast on behalf of somebody, we had an examination of the precise reasons why that person was absent. I see Mr Power, who has been a senior whip, understanding perfectly well how unattractive that proposition would be in actual practice. It is a matter, in the end, between the member on whose behalf the vote is being cast, and the Speaker. It is a matter for the member to notify if in fact he or she is not absent on that business.

JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

Madam Speaker, I think it would be useful if you could define for the House exactly how you will interpret public business. If we are to believe media reports, we know that the Labour Party will be casting the proxy vote of Taito Phillip Field—a person whom the Prime Minister described as immoral and unethical for his behaviour. It will be interesting to see whether you rule that somebody who was interviewed yesterday by the police and who could be in the dock facing significant charges falls within your ruling of being on public business. If you do not make that clear, I cannot see how the Labour members, who will be casting their votes, will understand it. The Prime Minister, if we are to believe her, thinks the actions of Mr Field have been unethical and immoral, and I cannot believe, if she believes that, that she will be casting his vote.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this

Madam Speaker, that point is an irrelevancy. Perhaps Mr Key will remind himself that a proxy vote was cast on behalf of Alamein Kopu for the National Party on a very large number of occasions, and that only a year or so back proxy votes were cast—normally in line with the National Party’s position on the issues in front of the House—on behalf of Donna Awatere Huata, who was actually facing criminal charges and was subsequently convicted of them. The point he raises, unfortunately, may make for a bit of a smile in the media, but it is irrelevant to the Standing Orders and their interpretation.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this

Madam Speaker, as someone who has been in the position that is being referred to, I want to pick up one or two of the comments that the Deputy Prime Minister has made, and to suggest a way through based on previous experience. When leave is issued by whips it is issued, effectively, on the authority of the Speaker. When leave is applied for to whips, normally some documentation accompanies the application—in other words, a member wants to be absent for a particular purpose. Between 2000 and 2002, when I was the sole member for my party, the arrangement that I had with the previous Speaker was, because technically he was the whip who would grant me leave, that I would put retrospectively an application to him indicating the purpose for which I was absent on a particular day.

Madam Speaker, I suggest that in this particular case that may be an appropriate practice to follow, so that if there is any question, the member is required to have at least provided some documentation to you justifying the purpose for which he was absent; otherwise, we could have a situation where, effectively, nothing much is changed. So I do think there is a way through it based on previous experience. I think, Madam Speaker, that it would be appropriate for you to say to the member that you need some written documentation to cover the periods for which he is absent.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

Dr Cullen confuses the issue somewhat. When our vote is cast, it is cast under Standing Order 156(3), which I am sure Dr Michael Cullen is fully familiar with. He is using that to obscure the nature of what is at issue here with Standing Order 156(4).

I go to the point that it is a very, very narrow set of reasons allowing the honourable Taito Phillip Field’s vote to be cast. It is not the situation of a party’s MP being away, which is not so narrow and which is set out specifically. The clear implication is that if these criteria are not met, the vote cannot be cast. The problem I have is that if we imagine the vote going to the Labour Party, we have Labour’s whip interacting with Mr Field to get him to explain that, yes, he still meets these criteria. The difficulty I have with that is that the Prime Minister herself says that this man is immoral and unethical—and, indeed, he is facing dishonesty charges. So he cannot be trusted, in the Prime Minister’s view. I do not see how the Labour Party whip can exercise this vote, because Labour cannot guarantee that the criteria are being met. Those of us who might be opposing the particular legislation at issue, believing that the Labour Party does not have the numbers, have no way of assessing whether Taito Phillip Field can vote, because we do not know the criteria.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I indicated to you before Dr Cullen’s second contribution to the point of order, I wish to bring to your attention the fact that Rodney Hide interjected on Dr Cullen’s first point of order, after Rodney Hide had complained and you had indicated people were on their last warning.

PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking just a little bit of clarification. Would it be fair to say that the rules surrounding proxy votes are fairly flexible? Have there not been cases of members dancing with the stars and dropping young women all over the floor, yet still voting by proxy?

JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could just take you back to Standing Order 156(4)(a) to (d), which is the part of the Standing Order that relates to Independent members. We are not talking about the situation where Mr Hide’s party, or another political party, may have two or three members; we are talking about the situation where a proxy vote is being cast for an Independent member.

I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that it is quite clear under Standing Order 156(4) that there are a number reasons why a legitimate proxy vote can be cast, and they are: “if the member concerned is—(a) present within the parliamentary precincts, or”, etc., etc., but under paragraph (d)(i) and (ii) the member may fall within two other particular reasons, which are an illness of a personal nature, or to attend to other public business. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that if the Labour Party, in casting that proxy vote, cannot understand whether Mr Field is on public business—if he is, for instance, being investigated by the police, being absent as he is today, or is in a situation where he may well be in the dock—then legislation cannot possibly be progressed. That situation may well occur in a second reading debate before we can progress any further in other debates. So it is simply not possible for Parliament to progress legislation when the Government relies on a one-seat majority, casting the vote of an Independent member who is going to claim to be away under the definition of public business when that public business is something that could legitimately be challenged by the Opposition.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this

I think the member is trying to draw too long a bow by making, essentially, Standing Order 156(4), and the rest, apply only to Independents or to a party comprising one member. Standing Order 156(4) was put into the Standing Orders in 1999, effectively by the Standing Orders Committee as a codification of the understood rules around the granting of leave within political parties. But where, of course, there is one person, then nobody else can grant that leave other than the Speaker himself or herself. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to draw the conclusion from the origins of Standing Order 156(4) that it is understood that it applies in practice to all members of the House.

It is absolutely equally true that it is applied in such a way that it is broadly interpreted and, importantly—as you said, Madam Speaker—is not inquired into by other members of the House. That would be an endless process every time, as has been rightly pointed out for weeks recently. Mr Hide was absent merely for appearances in a television programme. The fact that he dropped the young woman did not turn the situation into a case of illness.

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I thank members. The member is correct that the rationale behind that provision is that the person is an Independent, and there has to be a process. But the rationale is that the whips do, in fact, undertake that task. So if a different change in procedure is what is requested for an Independent member, then to be fair, for that to apply, the whips should be able to verify what is happening to other members, as well. I ask members just to reflect on that and, if they do wish that, then I suggest they raise it at the Standing Orders Committee.

The last comment I will make is that it is for the member to be the primary judge as to whether he or she is on public business and, as the Standing Orders read, that is communicated to whoever holds the proxy. That is the state of the Standing Orders at this stage.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to clarify—and I accept all the points that have been made—whether the authorisation provided to the honourable Taito Phillip Field is valid through to the next election. Does the authorisation have a time period, or is it valid through to the next election?

Madam SPEAKER Link to this

It is until the Speaker wishes to withdraw it, which would be when I received an indication that the member no longer wishes that practice to take place.

JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to go back to my earlier point first, the question we had for you is that if we cannot understand the definition of public business—and I put it to you that Taito Phillip Field may not be able to understand the definition of public business—then Taito Phillip Field himself will not know, if he is in the dock, whether he is in fact on public business. That is a very serious point—if he cannot understand whether he is on public business, then he does not know whether his vote can be cast on behalf of the Labour Party.

Secondly, in the event that he is not deemed to be on public business, because he is in the dock and you do not deem that to be public business, then the question is what the sanction against Mr Field is in the event that his proxy vote is cast by the Labour Party.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty is that you are not seeing any middle ground here. The reality is that Standing Order 156(1) to (3) makes it clear that there is a role for whips in the organisation of Parliament’s business. That authority given to whips comes not only from the fact that members sign up to a political party but also from the fact that the Speaker chooses to accept the honour of whips. Anyone who has been in that position knows the responsibilities that come with it. But this particular part was inserted because of Labour’s outrage over the actions of Alamein Kopu and, perhaps, some others. So we now ask this question, Madam Speaker: are you saying that an Independent member simply notifies you, and that that therefore absolves you of any requirement under Standing Order 156(4)(d). Is that what you are saying?

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.