Business of the House

I seek leave for there to be a debate on Iraq, led off by the Prime Minister and consisting of nine 10-minute speeches.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Business Committee decided this morning that there would be a debate, but I also understand that you closed that discussion with the view that there would be no interruptions or interjections during that debate. I want to bring the Speaker’s ruling related to that to your attention. It states that interjections during a debate are out of order, unless they are rare and reasonable. I would think that, at the very least, all members of Parliament have a right to make their views known—albeit within the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. In my view, it is wrong to put out a prescription beforehand—and, given what I heard happened at the Business Committee, I think that that is what you were about to do. We have waited months for this debate, and now, on the brink of war, we are about to have it. In this climate, members are entitled, within the Standing Orders, to have a normal, usual debating environment.

I regard this as one of the most serious debates—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So do we all.

There will not be any interruption while I am on my feet. I regard this as one of the most important debates. I want every member who wants to speak to be able to have his or her say, and to be heard. I do not want there to be running interjections. I want people to be treated as they should be in a democracy, so that they can express their views properly. As this is a very important debate, I want to hear members in silence.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are right. This is a serious debate, and I am sure the House will wish to treat it in that way. I recall that Dr Cullen’s leave—which we did not object to—was for nine 10-minute speeches. You may recall that I asked for some clarification at the Business Committee about the length of speeches for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Our agreement to the debate was on the basis that they would be given 15-minute calls. It is a shame that we should be in this current situation. We expected that the extra 10 minutes would have been split equally between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is very hard for a Prime Minister to outline a country’s position on something as serious as this in 10 minutes. It is also very difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to respond adequately in such a short period of time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I was at the Business Committee. I recall the decision, and it was exactly as the Leader of the House has read it out. I was there at the time, and that is how it was. Leave has been sought for that, and the House has granted it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want some clarification of your principal ruling: that those who are not addressing the House in this debate will remain silent. First, I want to know why you placed that prescription before the Business Committee—but not before the House—after it was agreed by the committee that this debate would be held. Second, you may think this is a deadly serious issue—so do we. That is why we have demanded a debate for months. We were denied that debate, and have had to endure the effrontery of the Prime Minister saying, for example, that it should be held in “our time”, as though it is a party-based, partisan matter, when it is not.

Please be seated.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I haven’t finished.

The member has finished. He will be leaving the Chamber if he does not resume his seat. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 51/4, which states: “Strictly speaking, a member is entitled to be heard without interruption, but with the tacit consent of the House the rule has been relaxed in favour of members asking reasonable questions.” I will not be totally unreasonable. I just say that this is an important and serious debate, and all members are entitled to have their say.