Jones Dail: Standing Orders 
Jones Dail: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10728] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In looking at the review of the Standing Orders and the report of the Standing Orders Committee for December 2003 I want to go through a few points in a chronological order. I want to express one or two concerns about the way in which this report has been drafted—and perhaps causes confusion—and make about nine or 10 points on it if I have sufficient time. 
The first page of the review states: “We recommend that the House adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A with effect from 10 February 2004.” There are in fact two Appendix A’s. There is an Appendix A on page 83 and within Appendix A there is another Appendix A. From a drafting point of view that should have been either Appendix AA or Appendix 1 and the terms “AA” “BB” and “CC” and the figures “1” “2” or “3” should have been used. As it stands it creates confusion. I accidentally turned to page 127 and could not understand why those were the only amendments. I started again at the beginning and discovered that in fact the true Appendix A started at page 83 and the other Appendix A was a reference to something that is already in the Standing Orders. That is one point. The other little point—and I know the speed with which the Clerk’s Office had to prepare this document—is that an index would also have been helpful. 
These reviews are not just for the benefit of members of Parliament. Some members may know more about the Standing Orders than others and there are members who know more about the Standing Orders than I do. But it is usual these days to turn to an index to try to help one through. There is no index in this document which is unfortunate and something that might be considered— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member tell us where the two Appendix A’s are? 
DAIL JONES 
: They are on page 83 and page 127. I hope this is not coming off my time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
DAIL JONES 
: On page 127 there is an Appendix A and on page 83 there is the actual Appendix A. It is referred to twice. I just make the point that if the document had been drafted better it would not have been done in that fashion. There is a heading Appendix A at the top left-hand side of page 83 of my copy— 
Darren Hughes 
: That is not the report. 
DAIL JONES 
: I know what is intended—and there is a heading Appendix A at the top of page 127. It is quite simple. So I just draw that to the attention of members. It will cause confusion to lay members if Appendix A is inserted twice and one should not have that. I know what is intended but this report is not written just for the benefit of a few members of Parliament it is written for the benefit of the public and there is clearly an ambiguity. There should also be an index. If Mr Speaker is paying attention I am pleased that I have drawn this to his notice. 
In so far as the other aspects of the Review of Standing Orders is concerned I think that from the point of view of members of the public who are interested in constitutional matters there is a question of the way in which privilege is to be regarded. It may be easy enough for the Leader of the House to skip over some of these matters but I think the way in which the Standing Orders Committee looked at privilege requires attention. Chapter 8 “Parliamentary Privilege” refers to Standing Order 397 “Examples of contempts”. I am sure that most members of Parliament have never read this Standing Order and would not know quite what was meant by the new change “parliamentary precincts” and certainly the new amendment (ea). 
New paragraph (ea) of Standing Order 397 states: … “the House may treat as a contempt any of the following—(ea) as a member failing to declare before participating in the consideration of any item of business any pecuniary interest that the member has in that business:” not to mention all the 10 or 15 or so requirements of examples of contempt. In fact there are more than that. There is a requirement about failing to produce papers. New paragraph (pa) states: “failing to obey an order of the House or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker:” I suggest paragraph (pa) is too harsh. It could be enforced very strictly because if one fails to obey an order of the House or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker—it may be issued quite lightly in some cases—then before one knows it he or she is in a parliamentary privilege situation. 
I turn to private bills local bills and local legislation bills and tell members that a considerable redraft has been done in Appendix B. I wonder what negotiations or discussions have taken place with local government local authorities and those law firms that have an interest in matters such as private bills local bills and local legislation bills. If any of them are interested in this matter I suggest that they get a copy of the report on the Review of Standing Orders very quickly because this area has been totally rewritten. All members of the House know that from time to time they introduce local bills and they may have private bills from time to time and the procedures as I say have been rewritten. It is important for the public to know that this is the case so that they can take some action on it. One area that has been skipped over too lightly by the House is Standing Order 398 “Member absent without leave” which states: “A member absent from the House on more than seven consecutive sitting days without obtaining leave of absence commits a contempt of the House.” That Standing Order has been deleted. This means that in future the Alamein Kopu’s of this world— 
Rod Donald 
: There is a replacement noted here. 
DAIL JONES 
: I take the member’s point and appreciate it. Whereas in other parts of this report the replacement amendment has been shown this particular provision does not show the replacement. I appreciate Rod Donald’s comment that there is a replacement. The report states in another part that a Standing Order has been “shifted to SO 397(ea)” but there is no such reference to the replacement in the case of the deletion of Standing Order 398. I am very pleased that Mr Donald has raised that point. Maybe someone will tell us what Standing Order 398 has been replaced with. Because in the first instance a member of the public who is reading Standing Order 398 would get the clear impression that the Alamein Kopu situation is being supported by this House when in fact Mr Donald quite properly tells me that that is not the case. I look forward to hearing from him on that particular issue. 
I move to Standing Order 145(3). This is the Progressive Coalition amendment. I believe that opposition was expressed by New Zealand First to this Standing Order in the Business Committee but of course if there is a very big group in favour and only one group opposing that is regarded as being enough to put the amendment through. I appreciate how the Business Committee works but it is clear that this provision in Standing Order 145(3) is a Progressive Coalition amendment enabling its members to be able to vote on a proxy presumably by the Government whip so that Mr Anderton and Mr Robson can be elsewhere without actually having to be in the House to vote although I believe they must be in the precincts of the building. That matter could perhaps be confirmed—that is that they are not outside the precincts of the building when that is done. 
I look again at broadcasting on page 12 of the report. The question of television coverage will have to be looked at very carefully. Whilst it may be appropriate to use excerpts from what is happening in the House I suggest that those excerpts should be used only in relation to the debate or discussion involved at the time and should not be used on totally unrelated issues because as I know personally one can perhaps be enjoying some humour in the House on a particular issue and then before one knows it that particular point is used in connection with something totally irrelevant which may give the wrong impression. I will leave it at that particular point. I think members know what I mean. There needs to be some control on how that excerpt can be used. 
One issue that concerns me is in relation to a quorum in select committees. As I read the amendment that is being put through a quorum is half the select committee or the higher number so that if as with the Justice and Electoral Committee we have 11 members the quorum would be six. The Government is struggling these days. It has five members on that select committee. Technically it could have no quorum at all if other members do not cooperate. Whilst New Zealand First generally will cooperate when we have been forced into a select committee when the House is sitting that cooperation is not forthcoming. 
I have barely begun my speech but I have obviously run out of time. I appreciate being able to make this speech and I am sure other members of New Zealand First will want to continue this interrupted contribution from me.