Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7633] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting that the Privileges Committee report has now been tabled and having had a look at it and being aware of its contents and also being in possession of a fax transmission to you yesterday from Crown Law in which the Solicitor-General has stated as point 15 that his conclusion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not received any fax from anyone. I can tell the member that I have not received a fax. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is in a point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a new point of order. Given your statement that you have not received the fax that was sent yesterday to the Clerk of the House are you telling us that the Clerk has not passed it on? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was sent to him on behalf of the Privileges Committee; it was not sent to me. So would the member please restate what he is saying. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The point is that there is now a Privileges Committee report on the Table. We know that in that report there is a reference to the Solicitor-General’s comment—point 15—that states the conclusion is that section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act is unambiguous and that as a result of Mr Duynhoven filing his completed application on 11 June 2003 it meant that his seat became vacant. Section 129(1) of that Act states that the Speaker must declare the seat vacant as soon as he knows that that is the determination by the relevant authorities. It seems clear that that is what has happened here. 
I have looked through  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and cannot see a time when any Speaker has ruled that although something is generally known to be a fact by the public the Speaker himself or herself does not yet know it. We get into a rather difficult situation particularly if we look at  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 written by David McGee which states that the House and its members are subject to the law of the land as promulgated by Parliament in the same way as everyone else in the State and that they must comply with any statute that applies to the House’s proceedings notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House to the contrary. 
I think that today we are straying dangerously into the territory of using the practice of the House to circumvent the law. That is a little bit of a concern. It would be unfortunate if the office of the Speaker were to be in any way drawn into the ambit of what a Government wants and prefers. We have seen the device of the Privileges Committee used for consideration of a matter that really in many people’s view should not have gone there in the first place because it was so patently clear-cut that there had been a breach of the law and there was a vacancy in the seat concerned. Our question is this: when do you intend to declare the seat to be vacant now that it must be obvious to all of New Zealand that you know that such advice has been tendered? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I ruled on this matter on 23 July I said: “I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.” Following the presentation of a report by the Privileges Committee the report is set down for consideration as general business. This means that the report will be on the Order Paper for debate next sitting day after questions and any urgent debate. I refer members to Standing Order 63. When that debate has been held I will take any action that I consider needs to be taken in accordance with the Electoral Act.