Points of Order — Conduct in the House—Standards

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a serious matter of standards in the House and how Parliament is perceived by the public, in the light of your role as the ultimate guardian of those standards. Yesterday an exchange took place in the House regarding the member Mr Ron Mark. A colleague of mine raised a point of order to the effect that Mr Mark had made a rude gesture to which my colleague had taken offence. You told the House that you had not seen the gesture, but you asked the member to withdraw if it had caused offence.

Since then the seriousness of that matter has become more apparent. I have here a photo taken from a TV broadcast last night that makes it quite clear that Mr Mark is, to use a colloquialism, giving the finger to someone. That has now been broadcast on national television. So the general public have seen a member of Parliament apparently able and allowed to make a gesture in this House that would be unacceptable in most workplaces and unacceptable among any group of adults who saw themselves as conducting themselves with respect for each other.

This matter is important for the House, firstly, because the public have seen that conduct and the fact that it had no significant consequence. Secondly, by comparison with other decisions you made yesterday, this incident was treated very lightly. Two of my colleagues were ejected from the House: one—called by the wrong name—who did not do anything, and one who, perhaps, deserved it because he interjected. I have to say that interjections broadcast on TV are not rated by the public anything like the offensiveness or low standard of behaviour of the gesture made by Mr Mark.

Along with other matters, I am becoming increasingly concerned—as I think a good number of parliamentarians are—about the growing public perception that behaviour of any kind is now acceptable in this Parliament, that members can behave in almost any way and, provided there is some mumbled apology about it, they get away with it. So I ask you to consider, Madam Speaker, firstly, the seriousness of Mr Mark’s action—granted you did not see it at the time—secondly, the seriousness of the fact that it has been broadcast in the mass media for the public to see as the action of a parliamentarian, and, thirdly, some kind of proportionality between the actions taken against my colleagues, including one who was wrongly named, and the actions that were required of Mr Mark to show some atonement for what he did.

Yet again, the authority of the umpire—that is, yourself—is being questioned in this House. It is completely untrue to say that Mr Mark got away with it. Mr Mark was required to withdraw and apologise. The Speaker has to check whether the action occurred if she did not see or, in the case of a remark, hear it. In the case of Mr Henare, he compounded his error by insulting the Speaker as he left the House, and was very lucky not to have been named as well as ejected. Far from getting an excessive punishment, he had a very minor punishment for the totality of offences that he committed.

In terms of behaviour in the House, perhaps some reduction in the level of barracking while questions are being answered would be a good start. Perhaps not continuing to threaten the Speaker with disorder if she does not give the rulings the Opposition wants would be a good second step to take. Finally, the fact that that photo exists merely proves that, yet again, the press gallery have been breaching the rules under which they are supposed to operate within the House, because they are not supposed to be taking any pictures other than of the member on his or her feet or of the Speaker.

But the reality is that it does not matter; what does matter is that Mr Mark withdrew and apologised. That is the end of the matter. It should not then be relitigated in any shape or form.

I think I have heard sufficient on this. Of course the gesture that was made by Mr Mark was totally unacceptable. I did not see it, and said so, but I asked him whether he had done it. He admitted that he had and withdrew and apologised immediately. I thank the member for drawing the matter to my attention. I will, of course, view the item on television and see whether it was within the rules.

The other matters were separate and were not connected. I also thank the member for drawing attention to behaviour in the House. I do receive, as I have said before, an enormous number of queries, complaints, and comments about the fact that people cannot hear what is happening. It is the barracking that I have been endeavouring for over a month now—with the cooperation of members—to try to get to a sensible level. Of course members should be able to interject—that is part of the robust debate of this House—but not to the extent that other members or members of the public cannot hear what is happening. So I thank the member for his comments.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank you for what you have said, and I appreciate that yesterday you did not actually see the behaviour and that that may have limited the disciplinary action you undertook. But I think this is a very serious matter, and members on this side of the House want some sort of indication of the nature of the punishment that such a transgression will receive in the future.

The reason is that a withdrawal and apology, which the Leader of the House apparently thinks is satisfactory, effectively invites people to repeat offences, knowing that the only punishment they might receive is simply to have to get up and give an apology. We have seen that many times before. People knowingly breach the Standing Orders knowing that that is the likely consequence. This is far more serious, however, than most of those kinds of oral statements.

I would like to think that you would give some indication to the House for the future that such behaviour would be dealt with far more seriously—at the least, the person would have to be required to leave the Chamber. Frankly, perhaps naming might be appropriate. If it is left, in the future, at withdrawing and apologising, you are likely to see more of it. What could be more calculated to bring the House into disrepute than that kind of behaviour?

I thank the member for his comments. He is probably quite right, in the sense that I have run a very robust House. I have not applied the Standing Orders strictly, because I have not felt that that is what members want. I thank Dr Mapp for making it quite clear now that the Standing Orders, in all their full glory, should be enforced strictly, and I shall endeavour to do that.

I wish to make a personal statement. Firstly, I want to apologise unreservedly if I have caused offence and brought the House into disrepute.

I also say to you, Madam Speaker, that yesterday was robust for me. I sat in this Chamber and listened to point of order after point of order directed to you, raising issues such as interjections by members of the House over questioners. Those points of order that I listened to were made by members of the National Party, and I was reflecting at the time on the fact that it was the deputy leader of the National Party whom you had to censure last week for interjecting over my leader. I was inflamed by some of the comments.

Would members please be seated. The personal statement procedure is to address the point; it does not allow a member to go on and make a speech. Would the member please bring his personal statement to a suitable conclusion.

💬 RON MARK: I will try my level best to stay within the Standing Orders, but I understand it is the opportunity to explain my actions and my decision, the consequences of my actions, and the reasons that I did something.

The reasons I did that were probably an accumulation of a number of frustrating factors that I took on board and took offence to. I took offence to what I cannot term a lie, because that word cannot be used in the House, but to a statement made by Tau Henare that was absolutely untrue. I took offence to it. In the banter that ensued between us I made a gesture that was unacceptable, and for that I apologise to the House. I have apologised three times now. I think that should suffice, Mr Henare.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the last few days we have been looking at issues that touch Standing Orders 399 and 400. This is a different point from the point Dr Mapp raised, which was the issue of disorder in the House. This, I would say to you, Madam Speaker, is an example of a contempt and should be dealt with differently. We are not here, where a withdrawal and an apology would assuage a contempt. It clearly does not; nor does an abuse of the rules relating to personal statements do that. We have here a clear example of contempt, within Standing Order 400. I draw your attention to Standing Order 400(o).

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but consistent with the Standing Orders, as the member knows, there is another appropriate process and the member is perfectly entitled to raise a matter of privilege with me. It is not in this House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. First of all, you have indicated you are going to see the tape, and I welcome that. But when you consider the tape, I want you to resist following the course that the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested to you. He seemed to suggest to you that your purpose in viewing the tape might be to consider whether the TV3 cameraman or TV3 as an organisation were in breach of their obligations to the House by filming it, rather than taking some account of whether Mr Mark had behaved in a grossly disorderly fashion, for which some further punishment might be meted out. I, for one, suggest to you that TV3 is fully within its rights to film an exchange within the House that was clearly a significant event occurring within the Chamber at the time. If you are to pursue TV3 in this matter, I suggest that you will compound the problem in that people will regard the House as being even sillier than Mr Mark portrayed it to be yesterday. I think the focus of your further inquiry needs to be very much on the conduct of Mr Mark. If TV3 was to be pursued in the manner suggested by Dr Cullen, I think most members on this side of the House, for a start, would regret that very strongly.

Madam Speaker, you have already dealt with the issue of the behaviour of Mr Mark, and it is out of order to relitigate that behaviour now.

I thank members for their comments. I think the Hon Murray McCully’s comment probably highlights the dilemma a Speaker has. I have just heard several points of order from members who have told me to apply the rules strictly, and I now hear another plea that I should not apply the rules strictly. I endeavour to apply the rules fairly, and I endeavour to apply them equally to all members of the House. From time to time we will all see matters slightly differently.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think there is a concern here, and I believe that the behaviour of MPs in this House is of some public interest. Mr Ron Mark, in particular, made an obscene gesture across the Chamber, and I think the public has a right to know that that is the sort of behaviour being exhibited. I think there would be concern amongst the public, and, indeed, in this House, if the proposal to have Parliament in control of the cameras therefore somehow shielded the behaviour we saw from Mr Mark. It would become a farce. We have to be very, very careful. If Parliament is going to take control of the feed, then people who contribute in the way Mr Mark did should be shown on TV. That feed should be available. Such members are making a contribution, albeit a silent one. The idea that somehow Mr Mark would be protected by Parliament in terms of his behaviour, and the way he made his interjection, would be seen by the public of New Zealand to be very self-serving, indeed. I personally think that the TV cameras did us all a service.

I thank the member. Points of order are, of course, to be made succinctly, but I thank the member for his contribution. As the member well knows—and he was at the committee meeting where this matter was discussed—the same rules will apply whatever the feed. I do not think we should take anything more on this, but I do appreciate and hear what is being said by all the members.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I try not to join in the points of order debates that go on from time to time in this House, but I feel I must draw your attention to the background behind this dispute. The Hon Tau Henare raised an issue that he knew to be untrue, because he sat in our caucus at the time. The HMNZS Charles Upham was of huge concern—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brown, I appreciate your frustration, but there are other avenues for this. It has to be a point of order, and the issue has been dealt with.

What I suggest is that if you are to reflect on this—and I personally urge you to reflect on it—then you should reflect on the whole scenario. An MP stood up and made allegations that were known to be untrue, which was the start of the whole thing.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I understand, and I was trying to indicate to members that all members are entitled to the same respect.