Supreme Court Bill

Members have concern about a ruling that I have given on how members should be addressed. This has been referred to three times in recent speeches. Members are concerned that my ruling is too rigid, and that it does not allow for robust debate and humour.

Mr Speaker, I did not call you back lightly or for any reason other than just to get clarification on this matter. I listened to the general debate this afternoon, and it was a vigorous debate. I think it was one of those occasions when we see parliamentarians cut loose and they say the things they are thinking. I personally was described in all sorts of different ways during that debate, as were numerous colleagues on this side of the House. There were accusations made about the motives that some of us may or may not have. In those accusations there were descriptions of personalities, as well, and the Hansard record will show that very clearly.

In the course of this afternoon we have had a little bit of trouble around this term “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” being applied to the seven Māori MPs from across the Chamber. I do not believe that in any of those circumstances it was meant as a derogatory term. It was meant as a bit of provocation to get them to speak. Provocations to get members on their feet to declare a position are surely part of the debate that one would expect in a Parliament. I chose not to use that descriptive, but, rather, said that the Māori MPs reminded me of seven gnomes at the bottom of Helen Clark’s garden that were made of concrete and seemingly unable to speak. I do not think that was a personal comment on any one of them. It was a reference to the fact that in this bill there are issues that are of concern to the wider Māori community, and there is an expectation that those concerns would be represented by those members, or, if they cannot be represented, that there would be at least some explanation from those members as to why they cannot represent that view. The real underlying point here—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please come to the point of order quickly? I am ready to rule.

The real underlying point is that if we are to be constrained simply to a formal style of address from one member of Parliament to the other, then this House is most likely to lose a considerable amount of colour. The thick skins that we are all known to have will become incredibly thin, and the quality of the work that we do in here would suffer.

I have no difficulty in ruling about this at all, and I do not need any further assistance. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement), which states: “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.” There are no exceptions. I was present during the whole of the general debate today. It was a vigorous debate, and so it should be. That is the whole point of a general debate. But members are not to be referred to in terms such as gnomes or dwarfs. They are members or honourable members, and that is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There is very little to rule on.

Could we just take it to the next step? Are we entitled to say that members have the characteristics of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and that their behaviour may be like that of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs?

The member will please be seated. I have given a specific ruling, and I will not go into hypotheses. Members must be referred to as members or honourable members. There are lots of ways that they can be accused of not entering into a debate—all the types of things that are made. I am sure there is a great deal of skill that a lot of members have in this regard.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is by way of clarification, because it is well known, as you say, that we cannot individually name somebody other than to call him or her by his or her proper title. How do we get on in the case where it is a general reference over several members? I do not know whether we have a specific ruling, and that is the issue that has come up—to describe a collective, if one likes, in a way that is a bit humorous and a bit of fun. One of the things that we try to encourage in this House is to have a smile every now and again, because it is a rare event. It would be unfortunate indeed if we got to the stage where we had a ruling that actually curbed our ability, rare as it is, to inject a little bit of humour from time to time. That is really the issue that concerns me. I wonder whether you might give us a little guidance on that aspect.

Yes, I will. I can remember when I was a student and came down here in 1959 to listen to a debate where the Government of the day was referred to as “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves”. Of course, that was out of order, and was ruled as such by the then Speaker in 1959. Until 1995 the rule was even more stringent—that is, only electorates could be used. With MMP, for collective terms the rule is Standing Order 117, which states there must be no personal reflections. It is within the bounds of the wit and intelligence of members here to say what they want to say without having to refer to that sort of comment, and I do not want that any further. I do not need any further assistance.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will just give you an illustration. By your ruling, I do not think that Dr Cullen would be able to make a speech. To be fair to him, he makes pretty colourful speeches. They are valuable in terms of the parliamentary atmosphere, and it would be very regrettable if that had to stop. I do not think David Lange would have been able to make any speeches at all if that ruling had stood. For example, the comment: “Someone puts me in mind of nothing so much as a ventriloquist’s dummy.” might be a bit close to the mark, but the point is capably made. There is a big difference between humour, irony, and analogy, and a straight-out vicious remark that is a reflection on someone’s personality. It is a given in politics that members can have a rather less than flattering view of their opponents. A famous American said that his opponent put him in mind of nobody so much as Abraham Lincoln if one can imagine a short, fat, dishonest Abraham Lincoln. That is probably going a bit far in this Parliament, but we have to be very careful about this rule; otherwise, I will have to find myself a new occupation.

The member will not have to do that, because as one of the most able members in this House he is well able to use his vocabulary and language so that he does not have to. The fact that he is able to speak demonstrates that the ruling is not restrictive. But I say to members that I have ruled that term out, and that term is ruled out. If I am called back again, I will be tempted to ask people to leave the Chamber. I have made a ruling, and that is it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think there is anything extra to say. It had better be new.

I have listened to get guidance, because if, when you have gone, the Chair takes the ruling as meaning, effectively, that those words may not be used because they are unparliamentary, I do not think that is what you intend by your ruling. For instance, I believe that within the spirit and the words of the rule it is quite permissible to say: “I am reminded of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I wonder who the wicked queen is. Which one is Snow White?”. That is creating an analogy and painting a word picture. It is not, in terms of the rule, addressing a member. It is a shorthand way of forming an image, and I believe that you do not intend to rule that out.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not. I have said that if members have the wit, the humour, and the intelligence, of course they can do that, but they cannot specifically refer to members other than by their name or their rank.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 1 Title (continued)