English Bill: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
English Bill: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7898] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Mr Speaker by raising a point of order we have now required you to make a judgment and you have so made it. You have now said that there is no vacancy. The question of whether there was will under this Government takes us into the realm of quantum physics. But important guidance needs to be given to Parliament as to future actions. You will recall from the privileges debate that the whole issue of timing and delay arose because the law requires you without delay to declare a vacancy. If a member of Parliament should now be disqualified by reason for instance of a court action on contempt charges—which is possible for my colleague—[ 
Interruption 
]—Nick Smith— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I said there were to be no interjections on points of order. The member knows it. 
The Hon Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker you will be aware that the MP for Nelson Nick Smith is subject to prosecution for contempt in our courts—a course of action approved by the Attorney-General. As a result of a successful prosecution there is the possibility that a sufficiently strong sentence could disqualify him from sitting in this Parliament. We then have a circumstance where with 2 months’ delay after that—as happened in this case—the Government could pass legislation retrospectively absolving him from the consequences of those actions. 
In the case of the Duynhoven legislation the time you took to make your decision is a very significant issue. Because it took 2 months after the event before you even heard the privileges debate—2 months during which you did not declare a vacancy—it seems to me vital that the rest of Parliament understands just what the rules will be. Nick Smith MP might need to avail himself of that opportunity before Christmas. He might come to Parliament and say: “Well I want 2 months from the event of disqualification to give the Government time to pass the legislation that will keep me in the House as if no vacancy ever occurred.” 
If the point were just hypothetical I could understand you brushing it to one side but it is not hypothetical. It is a real situation for an MP sitting in this House in that there is legislation in front of this House that if passed would mean that his actions were not subject to prosecution for contempt. That is how close we are to that MP being free of those consequences. So I believe that you need to explain to the House what the rules are now that in the Duynhoven case you have established that “without delay” does not appear to mean what the law says it means that there will be reference to the Privileges Committee even if there are no grounds for that reference and that despite the advice of the Clerk and the Solicitor-General that there was a vacancy you decided not to declare one. That is why Parliament is very keen to hear from you Mr Speaker. 
As Leader of the Opposition my advice to you is not to use the protection of silence. These matters did occur—even if the Government has legislated as if they did not—and Parliament knows that. You had a critical role and in my view you are honour-bound as my colleague Mr Prebble has said to explain to Parliament what will happen now. If you are not willing to explain your past actions—and I take it from your ruling that you are not willing to explain to this Parliament why you let a disqualified MP sit here for 2 months—then please explain what the rules are going to be now.