Supreme Court Bill

National is opposed to the Supreme Court Bill, and that fact is widely known. In looking at the name of the bill, we would be wise to reflect on what is implicit in those three words. We are talking about the abolition of the Privy Council, a court of excellence that has served New Zealand well for many, many years. We are also talking about ground-breaking constitutional legislation. We are talking about legislation that has been passed on the narrowest of margins. Indeed, it seems that the margin may be as low as three votes. It may be less, because there is some suggestion that some members of the Green Party are not wholly on the Government’s side in respect of this issue. They are not wholly on the Government’s side because they assert they are caring and committed on Māori issues, and it is the strong voice of Māori that this legislation not be enacted.

We are also talking, as we look at this title, about an asserted claim that the objective of the bill is to improve the accessibility of New Zealanders to justice. I was interested in an earlier interjection that the Privy Council was a court available only to the wealthy. That is the most foolish observation, and unfortunately I cannot identify which speaker made that comment. However, I would say that whilst assuredly the court is open to those who have wealth, it is also available for those who can access it through legal aid and also those who are of moderate means. When this Government talks about access to justice, that is one of the most hollow calls to arms we have yet seen from it. The Government has embarked on a range of initiatives that exactly counter that worthy proposition. Whether it is something like this, whether it is a planned restructure of the courts, which is the subject of work by the Law Commission, or whether it is swingeing fees hikes in respect of court fees, that is one thing this Government is not about—access to justice.

I spoke in the context of the title of this bill being ground-breaking constitutional legislation. It is interesting to reflect that the last piece of significant constitutional legislation was in 1986, when the Constitution Act was passed. Can members guess how many members of this Parliament voted for that legislation? The answer is that every single member of Parliament voted for it, which is a pretty amazing outcome, one might think. That is why many have said that for legislation of this type, it is not unreasonable that there be a substantial mandate—a substantial mandate in the order of 75 percent. In this case we are talking about a margin of three votes or lower. Indeed, in 2001 the Attorney-General stated in an article published in the Independent that it was absolutely critical there be maximum support from the business community. And what support is there from the business community for this bill? There is absolutely no support. In fact, 75 percent of the people who fronted up to the Justice and Electoral Committee did not want this bill to pass. That is why I say that this is no day of pride for the New Zealand Parliament. This is a sad day. This is a day when the Government has broken with clear constitutional principle and has determined it will push this bill through in time frames that are not consistent with normal parliamentary process. Yesterday we had the second reading, today we are in the Committee stage, and it would not surprise me if tomorrow we are at the third reading stage.

If I were a member of Parliament in the Zimbabwe Parliament, I would believe what is happening today. I believe that President Mugabe would ram through legislation of this kind to deprive the people of that country of the right to hearings at one of the best courts in the world, free from any interference from local people. Now, that is if I were in “Mugabeland”, in Zimbabwe; but, no, I seem to be in “Helengrad”. I am in a place where there is little regard for constitutional principles and no regard for democracy, because this minority Labour Government has no democratic right to have this bill passed through the House. It received no mandate from the general election last year. In fact, the statistics for the Labour Party show that at the last election it received the lowest number of votes of those eligible to vote at a general election since 1935. It received about 31.9 percent of the votes of those entitled to vote at the election, so this bill is going through with a mandate of about 31.9 percent of those entitled to vote at an election. That is from the Labour Party viewpoint.

This bill should be called something like the “Pro-Mugabe Bill” or the “Breakdown of the Westminster System Bill”. It certainly is not a bill to which the people of New Zealand have given support. If the Labour Government thought the people of New Zealand supported this legislation, it would have had a referendum. There is absolutely no doubt that if it thought the people of New Zealand supported this bill, it would be out there with the very simple question: “Should we abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council?”. There would have been a 1 or 2 year programme by the Prime Minister herself, basking in the democratic glory of putting things to the people.

More time has been spent on hui on the foreshore and seabed than on this legislation. This legislation has been pushed out the back door and rammed through this Parliament in the same way that one would expect Mugabe to ram legislation through. We have Supplementary Order Paper 151 before us, with eight pages of stuff to be rammed through with this legislation. We barely have time to understand the legislation, in so far as some members are concerned, and now there are eight pages of a Supplementary Order Paper to try to fit into this bill.

This Government has no regard for the people of New Zealand. This minority Labour Government, with the support of about 31.9 percent of those eligible to vote in New Zealand, is imposing its will on the people of this country, despite the fact that the vast majority of people making submissions to the select committee said they did not want this legislation. This is a sad day for democracy in New Zealand. Really, it is a sad day for democracy—that is the key to this legislation. The bill itself is almost irrelevant in that sense. This is a very, very sad day for democracy, for proper constitutional Government, and for the operation of the Westminster system in New Zealand.

If the Labour Government is not frightened of the result of a referendum, then why is it not having a referendum? It is as simple as that. There is nothing to be lost by spending another year or two on putting this through the referendum process; but, no, this Labour Government wants to ram this bill through the House, probably by the weekend. It knows that some members of the Green Party are looking at this matter very carefully and very clearly, and that they might possibly change their minds next week, because their voters will have got hold of them and said: “No, think about it.” Over the weekend Green Party members might change their minds, and that is why this Labour Government insists on ramming this legislation through the House now.

The last time I spoke on a bill like this was with Sir Robert Muldoon, and I, as a National Party member, voted against him. I crossed the floor with Derek Quigley and Ruth Richardson, because the matter was totally wrong and the way it was being handled was totally wrong.

If those seven Māori Labour Party members had any concern for their people, they would vote against this bill. Instead we have Huka Mā me nga whena e whitu—Snow White and the seven dwarfs. That is who we have in the Labour Party. The Māori members are seven dwarfs who have been cut down in their prime—if they ever had one—and who have no concern for the Māori people of New Zealand. In fact, this bill should be called the “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Bill”, because that is all we have from those Māori members. Mita Ririnui could not even finish his speech on the second reading last night. He spoke for about 4½ minutes and did not come back from dinner to finish his speech. He was too busy filling his stomach to finish speaking on the bill.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not interrupt the member, because he has 5 minutes only, but the phrase he was using has already been ruled out of order. I ask that he stand, withdraw, and apologise.

The phrase has not been ruled out of order.

💬 Jill Pettis: Yes, it has.

If the member wants to speak while I am speaking to the point of order, she might be in trouble. The word “dwarf” has been ruled out of order, not the phrase “Snow White and the seven dwarfs”. This is Parliament. We have a democratic system, the Westminster system, which has free speech. Are we to be told by you, Madam Chair, not only that we are to have the Privy Council removed but that free speech during this debate will go as well? It is a very simple, apt description of the seven Māori members of the Labour Party. Their attitude is that of dwarfs, and their leader may be called “Snow White”. It is a very appropriate summation of how the Māori people are being served by their seven dwarfs.

The member is not correct. It has been ruled out of order. When the member refers to other members, he must refer to them by their proper names.

I am seeking guidance. When a member is referred to as a “dwarf” or by some other pejorative—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the member speaking on the point of order?

Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on that point of order.

It is supplementary to that point of order. I ask whether the ruling on the point of order means that one cannot say “they are like” or “the story is relevant” or use the word as a metaphor without actually calling members dwarfs. It seems to me that it is far too wide. If it is ruled out as a metaphor, it is far wider than the parliamentary rules against abuse require.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Speaker ruled that when members refer to other members, they refer to them by their name.

It will be a sad day for New Zealand when this bill passes into law. I am pleased that there are three Māori members here in the Chamber, because they are presiding over a bill that their people—their voters—have not approved. I know that those members do this at a cost. They will rue the day that they ignored the wishes of the Māori people and presided over a bill that takes away access to the Privy Council, something that this country has had the benefit of since 1841. It will be a sad day for New Zealand and for democracy when this bill passes into law as the Supreme Court Act. This is a sad day for democracy. In that regard I totally support what Dail Jones said, because this legislation will pass into law without a mandate from the New Zealand people, and without the mandate of this Parliament.

The members on the Government side of the Chamber keep referring back to what happened in the 1990s, when a similar bill was first presented. It was withdrawn because there was insufficient support in the House for it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but she needs to speak on the title.

Absolutely. I am on the title, Madam Chair. If you had been listening to my speech you would have heard me talking about the Supreme Court Bill, but I will address the title more closely.

This bill should be called the “First Steps to a Socialist Republic Bill”. That is what it should be called, because that is the agenda of the Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson. That process started when this Government came into power. It removed the royal honours system, and is to change the title of Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel. I have noted that there have been no appointments to the Privy Council in terms of members of this House. Senior members of the House are entitled to have “the Rt Hon” as part of their titles, but those things are all going. This legislation is the next major step in the Attorney-General’s agenda of turning this country into a socialist republic. This bill should be called the “First Steps to a Socialist Republic Bill” because, at the end of the day, what someone like the Attorney-General wants is to leave her mark—a mark that nobody in New Zealand wants. She may say that she has some support for her agenda, but she has no support whatsoever for it.

This bill is not aptly named. It would be more honest if the title included a description of socialist republicanism, because that is what it contains. One day New Zealand may move to become a republic, but it will make that move because the New Zealand public want it, not because Margaret Wilson has an agenda for it, and not because seven Māori MPs are sitting on the Government side of the Chamber, enjoying the fruits of power, supporting Margaret Wilson, and not listening to their constituents.

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, you’re just jealous.

Who is jealous of that? Jill Pettis should get a life. I could not care less about those trappings, and nor should she.

The Māori members should do the job they came here to do. They are in power because of the Māori vote, yet they have totally ignored the Māori objections to this bill. They have treated them as if there were no credence to the arguments put by Māori. I have not heard any of those members answer the submitters on this bill directly, person to person. I have not heard any of them address Sir Tipene O’Regan, Api Mahuika, the Federation of Māori Authorities, or any of the submissions that were properly put and validly made. That is why this bill is so wrongly titled and should be titled the “First Steps to a Socialist Republic Bill”. The Government wants us to be all the same.

John Tamihere’s comment earlier on said it all, when he said: “Only for the rich”. It is that old socialist chip on the shoulder, “cannot stand people who are successful” attitude. That is how that Minister characterises this bill. Basically, he said the Privy Council is for the rich only. That is how far off the mark he is, and that Government is. As I say, it will be a sad day for this country when this bill passes into law. It will be a sad day for democracy when it passes into law, because there is no mandate for it.

The debate on the title of the Supreme Court Bill has attracted jibes from Government members across the Chamber that those opposed to the Privy Council are standing for the rich and powerful. The Privy Council has stood up more often against powerful interests in this country than any other separate court, as far as I can see.

The Privy Council, I say to the Minister in the chair, Mr Tamihere, stood up for Māori in 1901, and stated that the Court of Appeal was wrong in 1877. The Privy Council stood up for taxpayers against the oil companies 12 years ago, when it stated that our Court of Appeal had been far too solicitous and careful about offending oil companies when the oil companies were trying to claim that the Government could not retain the rights to petroleum prospecting in contiguous blocks. The Privy Council stood up for 2,000 offenders who had been denied natural justice by the Court of Appeal—

💬 Dail Jones: And legal aid.

—and legal aid. It stood up for a Samoan overstayer who was claiming New Zealand citizenship, against the might of the Government.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to refer to the title; that is what is being debated.

I am leading to the title. I am responding to the sole argument we have had from the Government side of the Chamber against the Opposition speakers who have been debating the title.

This bill might perhaps have been called the “New Supreme Court Bill”. When I started practising law, the Supreme Court was subject to the Court of Appeal. That was bizarre; it was an odd way for the Supreme Court to be described. Its name was changed to the High Court, and that was more logical. But now we have legislation that sets up a court to be called the Supreme Court, and it will probably start with less public respect than a court was ever started with in this country. This court will be born in controversy. The so-called Supreme Court will be born in the midst of a campaign for signatures to a referendum to end it. The court will have no mandate. To give the Supreme Court that name, in a situation where the people will be reposing in it the least confidence they have ever managed to repose in a court, is a constitutional tragedy. This court will not be seen as supreme, but as subject to the whims of a tiny socialist, academic establishment that controls the Labour Party.

This bill is a “trash the constitution” piece of legislation. The Attorney-General, Margaret Wilson, is reported in today’s New Zealand Herald as saying, when asked why this proposal is going ahead without a broad consensus, “That’s just the way we do it. New Zealand has this wonderful, fluid constitutional arrangement.” So we are setting up a court intended to be our supreme court, and to carry all the moral authority of New Zealanders looking for independent judgement and a level of dispute resolution that cannot be impugned as being subject to any kind of unfortunate influence. This legislation sets that court up in an environment where a good number of decent New Zealanders fear that a stacked court is being set up. A cosy academic cabal wants to make sure they can have in our top court only folk who feel and think like them.

This is a court that is being established to do what Lee Kuan Yew’s Government did when Singapore got rid of the right of recourse to its supreme court. I heard members of the Government jeering at that—jeering at our concerns as being concerns for the rich. That is not what the sole representative of the Workers Party in Singapore thought when the right of appeal to the Privy Council went, so that Lee Kuan Yew and the Singaporean Government would no longer be embarrassed by the Privy Council overturning its tactical defamation writs, designed to quash independent politics in Singapore. The Singaporean Opposition, small and feeble though it may be, did not see the Privy Council as a colonial relic; it saw it as a defender of independence. It saw it as a defender of the reputation of the judiciary in Singapore, and as being genuinely impartial in its judgments. Yet the Opposition members in this Chamber scoff, and say the Privy Council is a rich person’s court.

I would like to take a call to alert members of the Committee to the fact that there should be an amendment to the title of this legislation. The titles of bills should, in fact, convey to the reader and the public the essence and substance of what is proposed by the legislation. This bill goes far beyond setting up a Supreme Court in New Zealand, and I say to members that the title should be amended to reflect that.

First of all, this bill is not about ending the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is about denying New Zealanders the right of appeal to the Privy Council. That should be reflected in the title of this legislation. It is a denial, because the vast majority of New Zealanders have not had the opportunity to have a say on the major constitutional change that is incorporated in this bill. That is why the title should alert the people of New Zealand to the fact that their right of appeal to one of the most esteemed judicial authorities is being denied by the Government. There are many people in this Parliament who think that eventually that right of appeal should be denied, but I do not think the Attorney-General deserves the trust of this House or of the people in promoting that sort of denial of an appeal right. That is why I have moved a couple of amendments to this bill.

I will certainly support the amendment moved by the former senior partner in one of New Zealand’s leading law firms, Richard Worth, the National Party member for Epsom, who also wants to move changes to the title of this bill. When we have one of the senior commercial lawyers in New Zealand standing up in this Chamber—this is not a university professor who has talked to 21-year-olds; this is a man who has been at the leading edge of commercial law in this country—and saying that this title does not reflect the will of the Parliament, let alone that of the people, I think he should be listened to. Mr Worth, with his years of experience in practical law as it affects real businesses and real people, is saying that this bill is not just about a Supreme Court in New Zealand, but about denying the right of New Zealanders to go to the Privy Council. That right is being denied by an Attorney-General who has absolutely no right to foist that sort of change on New Zealand, because she has not earned the respect of the New Zealand public, or of this Parliament, that would entitle her to make those sorts of changes.

This legislation is all about this Government’s hell-bent desire to wreak constitutional change on this country by means of a majority of three votes. There is no moral authority to support any constitutional change by means of three votes—by one party that does not have one elected constituency member giving them those votes. Not one electorate has endorsed the Green Party. So what authority does that party have to vote with this left-leaning rabble to pass a constitutional change that the title of this bill does not fairly reflect? There is absolutely no authority for the Government to make a change by three votes, and this change is being promoted by an Attorney-General who has not earned the right to lead any constitutional change in this country. That is why we have amendments.

As I said, when we have Richard Worth, the MP for Epsom, standing up and saying, on the basis of his years of experience of dealing with commercial litigation and contracting in this country, that this change is bad for New Zealand and that this title does not reflect what is in this bill, then the Attorney-General should listen to what he has to say. I say to the Labour Party that this constitutional change should not be brought about without the overwhelming endorsement of the people of New Zealand, and not without the overwhelming endorsement of at least three-quarters of this House. There is no support in this House for this change. The majority of constituency-based parties in this Parliament are not in favour of this legislation. This Government is relying on a list party to support it. That is not moral, when making a constitutional change.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Firstly, the Standing Orders are relatively clear, and give guidance not only to members of Parliament but also, presumably, to presiding officers. The Standing Orders suggest that members from a party should be called in order of their seniority. I noticed that that has not been observed this afternoon, but I have been quiet about that. Secondly, I point out that a number of people have been seeking the call for a long period of time. While I do not in any way dispute the seniority of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I suggest that in fairness to those members who have contributed to the debate and put time into this legislation this afternoon, they should be given a slot a little sooner than someone who has just turned up in the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The call has been given correctly to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I ask him to please begin his speech.

Can I just say, for a start, that I heard John Tamihere’s comment that the Privy Council was for the rich. Of course, people who have never practised law, or who have had their certificate of practice withdrawn, or who have jumped before they were pushed—as he was—would come to that view. He said that he does not lie and defraud people. [Interruption] No, I do not, but he does. Forging and uttering are serious criminal offences—as is being five times drunk-in-charge. That is a serious criminal background. If Mr Tamihere wants to say what he said about me, he should say it here, then go outside the House and say it again—whereupon he will find himself in the courts so fast that his feet will not touch the ground.

The first thing I want to say is that, if that is true, how come I went to the Privy Council against the rich and famous, against people who were given knighthoods by the Labour Party—the Fay Richwhite and European Pacific connection—because they gave the Labour Party millions of dollars in 1987? It was payback time, and they lost—“We won; eat that!”.

The second thing I want to say is that this bill should not be titled the Supreme Court Bill; it should be called the “Whakamā (Kia Kaha te Republic) Bill”, or the “Whakamā (Up the Public Even Though It Is Bad for Māori Interests) Bill, or the “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Bill”. This bill should be called the “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Bill”. Here we have seven Māori members in seven Māori seats. There has to be a multiple franchise, they say—since 1867—because they represent, like no others in this Parliament, the narrow, particular Māori voice.

💬 Dail Jones: That’s what they say.

Well, we are still waiting to hear it. They represent, unlike anybody else, the peculiar, particular, special Māori voice in this Parliament. So let us hear it. There is not a sound, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a mutter from them—total silence. They have been amongst their leadership, around all the iwi, and no one in Māoridom supports this bill. And what do those narrow, particular, special-interest groups in this House, represented by the Māori seats, say? There is utter silence from them—not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur. Back in the time of Pomare, in the time of Buck and Ngata, no one ever asked the question: “What good are the Māori seats?”, because then Māori had a special voice, and everyone respected it. It was profound and strong, and it was great for this country. So where is the Māori voice today from Labour? It is gone. Not a word—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Silence.

Totally whakamā! They are too tired, or too shy, to speak for their people. As for the claim of the Prime Minister and Margaret Wilson that they have a mandate for this bill because it was in their manifesto, I ask whether Labour won the last election.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No.

Dramatically, they failed. Did the Progressives, after seven name changes, help them win an election? No. They were still a minority. Members should listen and learn. Is this promise in the Green manifesto? No, it is not. If it were in the manifesto, it might give Green members the colour of right to say they have some sort of mandate, but they do not. Nandor Tanczos said that they, the Greens, would listen to the voice of Māori, but, then, he thought that getting rid of drug charges in respect of marijuana—the Clean Slate Bill—was more important. Out there in Māoridom, any Māori thinking of voting for the Greens should think long and hard about, first, the destruction of Māoridom through marijuana, and, secondly, the compromise he made with Helen Clark to pass this bill.

The Minister in the chair, Margaret Wilson, has no mandate whatsoever. She will be gone from New Zealand politics at the end of the next election—of that I am sure. She will be a list member, and no list member will make it—not from that party. It is the ultimate in arrogance for members ever to think they are, in terms of what they do, so popular that they can leave their stamp on this country regardless, and let others pay the price and pick up the consequences. Well, we make it very clear that—short title or no short title—when we are back in Government we will repeal this legislation. If we are to have constitutional change in this country, it will be done by people who have the authority of the people of this country.

This bill should be renamed. It should be referred to as the “Supreme Betrayal of Justice Bill”, because quite clearly that is what it is. We have a Prime Minister who comes into the House and tells us—today, in fact—that our constitution is made up of several arms, several documents, and a range of rights and entitlements that New Zealanders expect. One of those most definitely is the right to be heard fairly by a court, the right to take an appeal to higher authorities, and the right—one that I would have thought all New Zealanders currently claim—to go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If that right is a constitutional right, then surely overturning it has to take more than just three MPs who have done a dark deal with the Government to get some of their own sad legislation through the House.

I am not going to refer to the Māori MPs in the Labour Party as the “Seven Dwarfs”. That would be unfair and, I believe the Chair would probably say, somewhat unparliamentary. But they have most definitely shown themselves to be the seven little gnomes at the bottom of Helen Clark’s garden, and, like gnomes made of concrete, they apparently have no ability to speak.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. I just remind members again: “Members may not be addressed by nicknames, first names and so on. They should be addressed by their proper name, or by the position or portfolio they hold.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson, I have heard your judgment, and, with respect, if it were to stand you would destroy the debating chamber, because what was said was said by way of analogy. I have heard all sorts of analogies in the House, and the House is the better for them because they better describe the circumstance. I have heard analogy used on both sides of the House. For instance, today I heard somebody referred to as “Wiremu Pākehā”. The person’s name is Bill English. Who protested about that? No one did, because the colour and flavour of this Parliament is assisted by such analogies. With respect, I think you are drawing a far too narrow proscription. It is usually when the words are offensive, such as if someone were to say that someone was like Goebbels—that would be offensive—that they are ruled out. But who could possibly object to likening someone—such as the Minister in the chair, Margaret Wilson—to Rose Red? I am not trying to be difficult about it, Madam Chair, but I think your decision is far too narrow, and, with respect, I never did withdraw that statement that day. I left the House and was never asked to withdraw it. That is a fact. If you go back over the Hansard, you will find that is the truth. I got sent out of the House, but I did not have to withdraw the statement.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Certainly, it is my clear understanding that the Speaker ruled it out, and we do have Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement), which I spoke to. I take the member’s point about being too precious, if one likes, about certain rulings, but the reference in question was certainly seen as being derogatory, and was ruled out.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek clarification from you. Are you now saying that referring to members as gnomes is ruled out?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am not saying that, at all; what I am saying is that its use in the context in which it was used when the Speaker ruled on it was clearly ruled out as being offensive in respect of members. It was clearly ruled that members should be referred to by their correct names, not by nicknames. That ruling was very clearly given.

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on that matter.

💬 Richard Worth: It is a separate point of order, and it is a point of clarification. Are you saying that we are not now allowed to say “and these members remind me of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”? Are you saying that you are ruling out “and these members can properly be said to have the characteristics of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”? Are you ruling out these members being called “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”? Are all those terms now on the new proscribed list?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I just remind members again that while points of order are being heard there will be silence. No, I am not ruling that, at all. What I am ruling is the Speaker’s ruling that was given and the context in which it was given that day, and the respect that members are due in terms of their names and their nicknames. That has been ruled on many times.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on this point of order.

Yes, I know, and I am going to uphold you. My point relates but it is not a challenge to you, at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, please be seated. There is no need for points of clarification when I have ruled on a point of order. If it is a new point of order, yes.

I thank you for your ruling. It is going to make debating in the House most interesting. I wonder whether you would now be prepared, as Deputy Speaker, to call the Hon Trevor Mallard back to the House and demand that he apologise for his atrocious breach earlier this afternoon of your new ruling, when he referred to Bill English as “Wiremu Pākehā”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. As the member well knows, I am ruling on a point of order as has been ruled now. It is not my duty or position to rule on anything that is past.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. With respect, if you are going to make a judgment that narrow, then I think we should recall the Speaker.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Peters, are you speaking to the same point of order?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I am raising a new point of order. There was a famous example in the British Parliament two centuries ago where a famous leader referred to his opponents as resembling nothing so much as a group of extinct volcanoes. At the end of the day, if we come to the sort of judgment that you have just made, then this Parliament will be the joke of Western democracies. Members will not be able to say anything of any colour or any flavour; they will not be able to use any analogies. It will always be “the honourable member this” or by his or her name. I do not think Mr Hunt had that in his mind, and I do not think you have it in your mind, either, but that is the consequence. The next time someone on the Government side or the Opposition side hears something slightly unfavourable by way of analogy, up he or she will jump and use your judgment as a precedent. I say that perhaps you would like to think about that before you come down with such a narrow judgment this afternoon. If any of my colleagues in this House think that I was referring to them when I used that famous fairy tale analogy, then he or she should have risen and opposed it, but they did not. Not one did—that is the point. Why are we rushing to defend others who find that robust debate, which is to be found on the marae of this country, cannot be used in New Zealand? More particularly, the Māori members know full well that that is how Māori talk—by way of analogy and illustration. Besides which, I hate to say it but sometimes people do not respond because the glove fits.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for the points he has made. [Interruption] Please be seated. This matter has been dealt with. I am going to move on. I call Mr Brownlee.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have been listening quietly to the debate because I think members are now expressing concern at the standard we are setting, which will be quite difficult for us to keep. I wonder whether it might not be better to ask you, before you make a final ruling on the matter, either to reflect on it or, alternatively, to call back the Speaker to get a view from him on the matter. I am worried. There are times when members, in the heat of debate, make a comment that can be quite humorous, but under this ruling the member concerned may well have to withdraw and apologise because he or she is outside the ruling. Of course we want to keep standards, and of course we ought to, but there are times when there is some humour and some giveaway lines that we all chuckle at—even the recipient, often—and it flows across the House. I wonder whether we might be strapping ourselves down a little bit tightly. Rather than make a definitive ruling now on this particular issue, I suggest that you might want to reflect a little and give us a ruling a little later on some parameters around it, just so that we can still have some humour while we go through some of these debates, as we have done in the past.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I certainly take the member’s point that we certainly do not want to curb vigorous debate, humour, and everything else. This matter has been ruled on.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just want to be clear. The Hansard record will show that what I actually said was that the Māori members reminded me of “gnomes at the bottom of Helen Clark’s garden”. Am I unable to say that?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The matter has been ruled on. Please continue your speech.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. It is the context in which it is said, and that is how I judged the matter.

Well, I do not understand it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee, please continue your speech. I have ruled on the matter.

I have somewhat lost my thread, I must say, and I think that is very unfair. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brownlee is raising a point of order. I just remind members again that there will be silence during points of order.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled. Members require a more definitive position on this matter. I am sorry, but the whole thread of what I was saying has been lost in all of this. Further, I think the suggestion that a ruling given on a day when there was a degree of acrimony around a certain statement should then be related to another description that hardly fits, I think, and was certainly not an intended political insult, leaves us in a difficult position. I have moved that the Speaker be recalled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is not a debatable motion.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled