Madam SPEAKERA point of order was raised in the House yesterday concerning the absence of members. I remind members of the convention that the absence of members is not referred to during the course of debate. However, I have considered the rules surrounding the attendance of members. No record of members’ attendance in the House is now maintained and the Standing Orders no longer require members to attend the House. The attendance of members is a matter for their own party whips. The Speaker does not intervene unless statutorily required to do so, or as provided in Standing Order 156(4)(d) in relation to the casting of proxy votes for Independent members or a party consisting of one member.
The Electoral Act 1993 provides that a member who fails to attend throughout an entire session, without being granted leave by the House, loses his or her seat. In such a circumstance, the Speaker would be required to act to start the process of filling the vacancy. However, as a session is now expected to last the full term of Parliament—that is, the 3 years—this provision is somewhat redundant.
Section 20 of the Civil List Act 1979 provides for a deduction of $10 from a member’s salary for each sitting day, exceeding 14, on which a member is absent during a session of Parliament. It does not apply where the absence is as a result of attending conferences, ceremonies, meetings, or travelling on any mission or business as a representative of Parliament or with the authority of the House. In addition, deductions are not made where the Speaker certifies that the absence is caused by illness or other unavoidable cause. No such certification has been issued in the current Parliament.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I first thank you very much for giving us that ruling so very quickly, but can I point out that your ruling centres on leave provisions and the circumstances in which members may find themselves absent from this House, quite legitimately. Those issues are mentioned in David McGee’s book, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, at around page 38, I understand. Further on, there is quite a discussion about the way in which votes can be cast and the entitlement of members to have their votes cast by whips under proxy. In that case, I refer you to about page 205, which I think is slightly contradictory to the position taken in your ruling today. I wonder whether you might look at that in order to satisfy us that all the aspects of parliamentary practice in New Zealand are being followed in the case of this particular absence.