Foreshore and Seabed Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled to rule on a matter regarding points of order and the Chairpersonship. I sent Mr Brownlee from the Chamber because of his continual disobedience of the Chair’s ruling. He had been asked to sit down several times. He raised a point of order that was not a point of order. He interrupted a member’s speech with a point of order that, again, was not a point of order, and he continued to disobey my instruction to be seated.

The debate in respect of the bill has been contentious. The deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, raised a point of order. During the course of his point of order there was a whole series of quite loud interjections, on which no action was taken. When Mr Brownlee eventually saw that the Chair was standing, he resumed his seat. It seems to me that the action taken by the Chair of the Committee to eject the lead spokesperson for the National Party on a bill that is being considered under urgency is quite an extreme measure.

I note that the speaker who was interrupted—which gave rise to this incident—was the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters. I could list at least 10 instances in recent weeks in which Mr Peters himself raised points of order that were no more than political points that interrupted the flow of speeches or questions, and you have tolerated those. I think that the judgment to exclude the deputy leader of the National Party, our lead spokesperson, is excessively harsh in the circumstances and that, for that reason, he should be allowed to return and continue to participate in this debate.

The true facts are these. In my last speech before the lunch break I was interrupted five times. In my latest speech I was interrupted three times in the first 20 seconds—once by Nick Smith, who was standing at the Table and shouting a barrage of statements from there. I do not know what they meant, but he was doing that and he knows it.

Then a further point of order came from Mr Brownlee. There was no interruption of his point of order until, having been asked—for the longest time that I think I can remember—by the Chair of the Committee to sit down, he refused to do so. He just went on and on. The members on that side know it; we all saw it. At that point, yes, there was interruption from our side, but Mr Brownlee invited it upon himself in an outrageous act of contempt towards the Chair.

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on the motion of Dr Nick Smith. With respect to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I do not think that the Chair took the action because it was Mr Peters speaking. All through the Committee stage on this bill, Mr Brownlee has raised points of order—at least half a dozen that I can think of—that were not points of order; they were points of debate. They were not terse points of order, either. The Chair had warned Mr Brownlee about that. Mr Brownlee saw that the Chair was on her feet calling for order. He turned his back on the Chair and started addressing New Zealand First members in a way that was clearly going to incite their response.

The senior Opposition whip accepted the decision of the Chair to eject Mr Brownlee. The senior Opposition whip did say, though, that New Zealand First members should not have been interjecting on a point of order. That is probably correct. With no explanation to the Committee, Dr Smith then took it upon himself to move that you be recalled. The Government supported that, as is parliamentary convention, but I am at a loss to know exactly what the National Party is opposing, given that Mr Brownlee was warned several times. The Chair acted on that, and I think the action she took was entirely appropriate.

I rise to add further to the explanation offered by the junior Government whip in respect of the incident currently before us. Mr Brownlee’s reaction to the comments made by New Zealand First interjectors came about from a series of interjections that were, from my recollection, directed towards Mr Brownlee prior to the Chair ruling on whether he had correctly raised a point of order in the terms laid out in the Standing Orders. It was those interjections that then created an unruly atmosphere, in which Mr Brownlee strongly responded.

Mr Speaker, if you are ruling on conduct in the Chamber, I would also urge you to make clear to the Committee what is expected when a point of order is initially taken and, prior to the point where the Chair has ruled on whether it is a point of order, that interjections are not allowed at that point, as well.

Mr Speaker, I think that we all know what your ruling has to be, but I want to make the point to you that Mr Peters’ suggestions with regard to Mr Brownlee’s conduct are not fair. It is correct that before the lunch break he had three points of order, but two of them were from me, and the Chair upheld me both times. I will not go into what Mr Peters was saying, but for him to suggest that Mr Brownlee was interrupting his speech is just not correct. Those points of order were raised by me.

Having said that, I do not quite know why you have been called back, because obviously you have to support the Chair. But I suggest to you—and perhaps, through you, it will go back to the Chair—that it would be most unfortunate to have a debate on a major matter when the deputy leader of the National Party, who has been the Opposition’s senior spokesperson on this matter and who was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee, is not in the Chamber. My suggestion to the Chair is that perhaps after we have the vote on this part Mr Brownlee might return, because without him we cannot hold a proper debate.

I thank the member for his contribution, nearly all of which I agree with absolutely, except for the last point. Members make their own decisions on what they do, and they have to live by the results of them. I was listening to the incident, and I thought that the Chairperson was incredibly generous in allowing the member to continue four or five times when he would not sit down when she was on her feet.

Members cannot challenge the Chair. It is a frivolous use of the right to move to recall the Speaker, unless there is a genuine matter of order on which the Speaker can rule. Members cannot criticise the Chair. They can ask the Speaker to review an interpretation of the Standing Orders—that is what this procedure is all about. The Chair is the sole judge on matters of keeping order, and the Speaker will not review such a decision. As far I am concerned, I abhor the thought that when a presiding officer is ruling, anybody else is interjecting. I heard it quite clearly. It was for that reason that the member was asked to leave, and it was a decision that I absolutely uphold. I declare the House in Committee.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Public foreshore and seabed (continued)