O'Rourke Denis: Standing Orders Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National Emergencies — Instruction to Regulations Review CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Standing Orders Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National Emergencies — Instruction to Regulations Review Committee[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First supports nearly all of the amendments to the Standing Orders that are proposed. We have participated in a collaborative process that has resulted in a number of very worthwhile changes. I wish to refer to only three of them.The first one was proposed by New Zealand First and was adopted by the Standing Orders Committee amending Standing Order 34 “Recognition of parties”. We were very concerned at the events that followed the registration of United Future recently. We were especially concerned at the way Standing Order 34 was applied to the situation that United Future was in. We considered the reregistration of that party for parliamentary purposes following its new recognition under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 to be illegal under Standing Order 34.It was New Zealand First’s understanding that the status of a party for parliamentary purposes is determined at the date of the last election or where relevant at the date of a subsequent by-election and at no other time. This is clearly expressed in Standing Order 34(1) which requires firstly that the party be then registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 and secondly that it have a member elected in that party’s interest as at the last general election or subsequent by-election.It is also clear that following deregistration of a party under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 during a parliamentary term Standing Order 34(4) applies and that any member of Parliament who had been one of that party’s recognised members of Parliament as at the last general election or subsequent by-election then becomes an independent member for parliamentary purposes under Standing Order 34(4). With regard to the new recognition of an independent member as the member of a recognised party Standing Order 34(2) has two components. One component deals with an existing recognised party and the other with a new party that becomes recognised under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 and has at least six members. It is the situation in paragraph (a) that caused concern and that was the part applicable to the situation that United Future was in with only one member at the relevant time.It is particularly the use and meaning of the word “existing” in paragraph (a) that was the root of the problem. It was New Zealand First’s understanding based upon the usual rules of interpretation and the scheme and intent of the statute as a whole that the word “existing” can only mean existing as at the date of the last general election or subsequent by-election having regard to the content of Standing Order 34(1). Therefore in the case of United Future once it had been deregistered and its one member had become an independent member that member could not subsequently be recognised as a United Future member again even if the party was reregistered. This is because under paragraph (a) the party having been reregistered with new or additional members could not be the same party as the one that had been existing as at the last general election or a subsequent by-election. And nor could United Future have been recognised under paragraph (b) as a new party because it did not have six members.New Zealand First believes that whether our interpretation is correct or not it would be very desirable for Standing Order 34 to be amended and clarified in these respects. New Zealand First therefore proposed that Standing Order 34 be amended accordingly. That change I am pleased to say will now be made but it is subject to the prior requirement that the Speaker will have the authority to grant parties temporary recognition for a reasonable period. Thereafter if a party ceases to be recognised it can then subsequently be re-recognised only if it meets the criteria for a new party—in particular it would then need to have at least six MPs.Another change but one with which New Zealand First did not agree concerns the way that bills that are thought to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are handled and how they are to be dealt with. We believe that the recommendation for reference to just a standing committee is insufficient. We all know that the result of that can be little or no real consideration at all and that is really not good enough for something as important as the possibility of inconsistency of proposed legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—an incredibly important matter. We felt that reference to the Committee of the whole House and a full debate with the benefit of comprehensive reports would be necessary at least. So this is something of a work in progress for us. We believe that it is something that will need to be followed up at a subsequent time.The only other change I wish to comment on is the new rules and procedures for members of Parliament’s attendance. The Standing Orders needed to be updated on that and it needed to be made clear that there would be a sanction for MPs who do not attend regularly. There have been very few who have fallen into this category because party discipline has usually taken care of the issue but with some MPs becoming independent or being one-person parties it is wise that these new rules be incorporated. So with those changes the ones that I have mentioned and with our approval also of the various other changes—and there are many—New Zealand First will be happy to vote for both of the motions.