Financial Review Debate — Speaker Recalled

Mr Speaker, you were recalled by the House, because I had given a ruling on a member Dr Nick Smith. I asked him to leave the House. I asked him to withdraw and apologise, which he did. He then commented on my ruling. I then asked him to leave the House. You have been recalled to rule on that matter.

Loosely, that is the situation. In the course of the debate Dr Smith made a comment for which he was required to withdraw and apologise. He withdrew and apologised for that remark. Rather than question the decision by the Chair of the Committee, he asked a question that, I would say, was no more than a debating point, and in fact, a statement of fact. What he said was “Is the member no longer a member of the Labour Party?”. I have looked at pages 17 and 18 of Speakers’ Rulings, which relate generally to criticism of the Speaker. I cannot see anything there to suggest that this was a criticism of the Chairperson. The member complied immediately with the requirement to withdraw and apologise for the remark. That is consistent with Speaker’s ruling 17/6. In continuing a speech, as it happens, it is quite frequent that comments are made that are of a debating nature. While it is not appropriate to bring the Speaker into the debate, I do not believe for one minute that that is what Dr Nick Smith was doing.

Perhaps it is not coincidental that this incident occurred during what has been quite a spirited debate and a much-anticipated debate also, and I would suggest that there has been a degree of oversensitivity on the part of the Chair. The conduct for this afternoon has been perfectly civil and inside the Standing Orders. Again, I cite that Dr Smith complied with Speaker’s ruling 17/6 immediately, and in no way was his comment intended, nor do I believe it could be construed to be, as any sort of attack or, for that matter, reflection upon the Chair.

Speaker’s ruling 17/6 states: “It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government—such a statement must be withdrawn unreservedly;”. In the course of the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s speech he said, in relation to me, that I preferred to be here where I have a member of my own party in the Chair. That to me, without question, was a statement that the Chair was biased. The Chair then asked Dr Smith to withdraw and apologise, as the Speaker’s ruling precedent suggests that he should, and should do so unreservedly. He eventually rose, withdrew, and apologised, and then as he sat down called out to the Chair: “Aren’t you still a member of the Labour Party?”, thus compounding the offence of alleging that the Chair was biased. I put it that the Chair behaved quite properly in then asking him to leave the Chamber—it was at that point that the Opposition objected and asked for you to be recalled—and I suggest that her ruling should be upheld.

I put it to you strongly that in asking that question Dr Smith, who as it happens was instructed by the Chair to resume his speech, and made that comment at the beginning of his speech, was simply making a debating point.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Did he say, “Aren’t you still …”?

He did—I believe the Hansard will show that—to the Chair of the Committee, and began to carry on with his speech. While it is important that Parliament does have a degree of decorum, it is also important that we do not hide behind the Standing Orders to prevent robust debate, and that we do not stifle the reasonable opinions of members of Parliament because they may or may not comply completely with the absolute letter of Speakers’ Rulings. Dr Smith acted as he should have, according to Speaker’s ruling 17/6. Because he did so, that should be the end of the matter. The comment on which the Chair of the Committee has hung the decision to remove him from the Chamber is, to say the least, spurious.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am just about ready to rule, but I will hear Dr Cullen because I heard two from the Opposition.

The defence that has been offered by the member is that Dr Smith’s remarks were in the form of debating material. That argument must fall at the first hurdle, since the comment was aimed at the person in the Chair, and the person in the Chair cannot be part of the debate. The debate is between the members opposite and the members on this side of the Chamber, and the Chair is impartial between those two sides. So that defence fails immediately. By making that comment, clearly the member cast doubt on whether his previous withdrawal and apology had been unreserved, as is required by Speakers’ Rulings.

One point I agree with Mr Brownlee about is that robust debate is permitted in this Parliament, and we have it. We have a very robust democracy. But that is not the issue here. Dr Smith’s retort to the Chairperson is the point. A withdrawal must be a simple withdrawal without qualification. The member qualified his withdrawal. That is highly disorderly. I certainly uphold the ruling of the Deputy Chair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you vacate the Chair I wonder whether you could give the House, particularly the Opposition, some advice on what Speakers’ rulings 17/4 and 17/5 mean and entail.

Of course, one of them goes back to 1960, the other goes back to 1931: “It is out of order for a member to suggest the Speaker is defending the Government—such a statement must be withdrawn unreservedly;”. Speaker’s ruling 17/4: “The Speaker’s ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice.” That means that a motion can be put down about a decision that was made, on the Order Paper. It is perfectly in order for anyone to do that. That goes back to 1891. Speaker’s ruling 17/5: “The Speaker’s ruling may only be challenged on a motion of which notice has been given. Such notice cannot be accepted immediately after the ruling has been given. It must be given at the appropriate time.” That means the motion can be put down with notice.

I just want to make the point that this matter has taken a bit of time out of this debate. I tried to ensure that would not be the case. I am disappointed that that has been the case. Of course, it is the minor parties that are disadvantaged as a result. I declare the House in Committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2002/03) Financial Review Bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (continued)