Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

We have had a point of order from Mr Brown regarding the use of the words “health Nazis”. Mr Brown did not raise the point at the time, but I have taken speakers on the point of order and have ruled that the words were in context at the time, and that it was not necessary for me to rule them out.

Mr Speaker, I apologise for calling you back so quickly after you were last in the House. I did raise this issue as promptly as I could. I was not in the House when I heard the Hon Peter Dunne speak, but listening on my speaker. When I got here, the House was tied up on the previous point of order. I raised my concern as promptly and as quickly as I could.

My concern is that the Hon Peter Dunne used the unfortunate term “health Nazis”. To many people in this world—certainly, British people, and I would think many, many New Zealanders—the term “Nazis” is exceedingly unacceptable. If referred to as a “Nazi”, many people I am aware of would deal to the person who delivered that statement physically and very severely, although that would not be my attitude. I am asking whether that is an acceptable parliamentary term. I point out that this afternoon you tossed out my leader for referring to someone—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, in the House; not outside the House.

In the terminology today the word “dwarf” was used. People call me a giant, and I take no offence at that whatsoever, but I would take personal offence if I were referred to as a “Nazi”. It is unfortunate that we are describing somebody we cannot identify as a “health Nazi”. I believe the term “Nazi” should be regarded as unparliamentary, and I have sought your recall and advice.

Mr Speaker, while it is unfortunate in some ways that you have been called back, in other ways it would help the House if you were to give a proper ruling on this matter. If we look at Speakers’ rulings on the question, we see they create an impression that might have made the member think that the Speaker could rule out the phrase “health Nazi”, but I put it to you very strongly that the Speaker cannot. Speaker’s ruling 44/2 states: “There is nothing which prevents a member from commenting, if necessary in severe terms, on the conduct of people outside Parliament, but the member should do so only if it is necessary for the argument being put forward.” I will come back to that. We have a further statement in Speaker’s ruling 44/3: “Members have absolute privilege in the House and cannot be held liable outside the House in relation to statements they have made in the House.”

It is a question of free speech. I believe that, even if members find the phrases “Nazi” or “health Nazi” to be objectionable, that is a question of taste. If the Hon Peter Dunne wishes to use the phrase he is entitled to do so, and the Speaker should uphold it. I point that out because it appears to be contradicted by at least some rulings—which go all the way back to 1900—stating that temperate and decorous language should be used with regard to persons outside Parliament. I suggest that such rulings are in contradiction to our right of free speech. Although I think it is reasonable for the Speaker to tell members that how they refer to people outside is a matter of careful judgment, either we have free speech or we do not. I think it is time we had a further ruling from Speaker Hunt saying that members have the absolute right of free speech, provided they are not referring to a member of the House—and the honourable member was not. He is entitled to call anyone outside the House—who is not a member of the judiciary—a Nazi.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say I do not need any further assistance.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Mr Speaker, I am the subject of the comments, so surely I should be able to make some comments.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to make a comment very briefly because I am ready to rule.

I will be brief, Mr Speaker. I want to give you an absolute assurance, as I gave Mr Brown when he raised the matter in the Committee, that my comments were not directed to any member of Parliament.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is right. I heard that.

In relation to the comment I picked up from him, I say that that group of people was contemptible, despicable, and the lowest form of low life imaginable, and I think that the beady-eyed zealotry of the officials behind this bill fits that behaviour. The term “health Nazi” has been in common public parlance for a long time. I have heard reference to “femi-Nazis” and other forms of Nazis—the terms for all of which are out there in the popular domain. Those terms are not being used in reference to any member of this House; they are being used to categorise a form of behaviour and approach to things at the heart of this legislation and at the heart of this debate. I just wanted to make that point and to reassure you, Mr Speaker, that my comments were not about members of the House but about forms of behaviours causing the debate we are having this evening.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s argument on that last point. The use of terms about people outside the House is a question of taste for each member. I do not like that, but it is the ruling. Anyway, a point must be raised at the time; if a member is not present, that is just too bad. The House cannot go back just because a member was absent, so I rule that it is a question of taste, as far as this is not related to members of the House. I declare the House in Committee, again.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): In relation to the vote on Steve Chadwick’s amendment to clause 2, and on the question that Part 1 as amended be agreed to, the results were announced incorrectly as Ayes 64, Noes 51. The correct result, in both cases, was Ayes 64, Noes 52.