Naming of Member

The member’s behaviour is disgraceful, and I ask the House to name the member. The question now is, That the House name Hon Dr Nick Smith, whose conduct is grossly disorderly, and judge the conduct of this member.

A party vote was called for on the question that the House name Hon Dr Nick Smith, whose conduct is grossly disorderly, and judge the conduct of this member.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You put the motion. It was very clearly won on the voices, and no member called for a ballot. I put it to you that the proper course for you, and there is only one course open to you, was to declare that the Noes have it. I invite you to make that calling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is not correct. It is up to the Speaker to call, and I have said that the Ayes have it and that the vote be called. There will be silence during the voting.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): This matter has been dealt with. You cannot relitigate, or further debate, a matter that has been dealt with.

I understand that we can always ask the Speaker for clarification of rulings.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There is no debate on this matter.

It is not a debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There is no debate on this matter.

I am simply asking that you clarify the matter. You just commented that the Labour Party, and other members, who clearly, in our view, have a financial interest in this bill, do not have any greater interest than any other member of the House. I do not think you can let that hang out there, without some explanation. It does not have to be now; it might come later in the proceedings.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the matter. I call Peter Brown.

I seek leave to table this piece of paper on which I have a number of scribblings.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I do not think that is enough explanation of what the member wants to table.

These are my speech notes from before. Do you wish me to read them?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No. The member wants to table his speech notes. I just warn the member that he cannot trifle with the House. We have dealt with this matter before, but the member wishes to table these speech notes. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just warn the member that I will not tolerate trifling points of order. The member cannot proceed to table matters that are not within the House’s business. We have dealt with this point on another occasion, as the member well knows.

In my speech, I referred to the Review of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, DK Hunn and Henry Lang, January 1990. I seek leave to table that report.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member wishes to table that report. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to draw to your attention that I was halfway through my speech, and although I have no problem with Mr Brownlee taking as many points of order as he cares, it is a custom of this House to allow a member to finish his or her speech, then take the points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Members are always entitled to take points of order, as we have seen. But the House needs to get on with its business.

During the course of my speech, I referred to a number of matters that are covered in the legal opinion given to the Speaker by Mr J Hodder and Ms BA Davies, 11 October 2006. I seek leave to table that document.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the opinion of Mr Jack Hodder of the law firm Chapman Tripp, which has been referred to by previous speakers, and which I intend to refer to, at length, in the speeches that I will be giving to the House in respect of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I thought that was one that Mr Brownlee just did, but if it was not, is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise an issue under Speakers’ rulings 16/7 and 16/8, which relate to appropriate business attire for members of the House. I was wondering whether the electioneering badge being worn, at the moment, by some members of this House, including yourself, would be considered as part of business attire. I think it has electioneering on it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated; she is just trifling with the House.

No, I’m not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just a minute, I will explain. Many members wear, as the member is wearing right now, a support emblem, or whatever one likes to call it. This badge is actually in support of board of trustees’ elections. It is exactly the same as the member is wearing, herself.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled there is nothing against the dress code.

Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Could you please be seated.

Could you please give me the courtesy of making my point of order, without interrupting me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on the matter of the dress code. I have explained what it is, if the member could not read it from there. It is exactly the same as many members wear in this House, to support a cause or otherwise. If the member has a new point of order, please raise it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That point of order from Judith Collins was not a great point of order, but she was allowed to be heard in silence. You have ejected members of the National Party when they admitted to interjecting on a point of order, and there is no doubt, I know, that if you asked the Hon Harry Duynhoven whether he interjected on Judith Collins’ point of order, he would say he did, and therefore I think you should ask him to leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The Hon Harry Duynhoven, did you interject?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will leave.

Hon Harry Duynhoven withdrew from the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will hear the point when there is silence.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. You will have noticed a number of members here seeking leave to table certain things. The point that my honourable colleague Judith Collins made was about her points of order being able to be heard. I have to make this point, although it does not give me any pleasure to make it: consistently, when we on this side of the House make points of order on various things when you, Madam Assistant Speaker, are in the Chair, before we have said two or three words you cut us off. If you want to know one of the reasons why there is often difficulty when you are Chair, it is that on this side of the House we do not feel that we get fair treatment. It does pain me to say that, Madam Assistant Speaker, but I want you to reflect on what I am saying. I do not take trifling points of order, but this is a serious matter, and it will cause trouble for you in the future, and trouble for the order of this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just say to the member that that was a very threatening statement to the Speaker. The member knows that there is a correct procedure, if the member wants to complain about the Speaker, and the member will follow that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am in some difficulty, because I believe that procedure has not been followed correctly. You will know that when procedural motions take place, such as a closure, the wording of the motion has to be used precisely. The point of order that I make is that if you look at Standing Order 87, you will see that the correct wording of the naming was not adhered to. You said: “I move that the member be named.” Standing Order 87 says: “ ‘That [such member] be suspended from the service of the House’. ” That is the naming process. I put it to you that in your attempt to deal with the disorder that you perceived, you did not use the appropriate wording for the procedural motion that should have ensued at that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I called on the House to judge the member.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Naming a member of Parliament, as you know, Madam Assistant Speaker, is the most serious thing that can happen outside of a breach of privilege. So what has gone on here today is very serious indeed. It is not often that the Standing Orders specify the precise wording that has to be used. I cannot see how Dr Nick Smith can have any sense that there was a proper vote of Parliament, when an incorrect procedure was followed. I think the easiest thing to do is essentially to validate the vote of the House by your naming him correctly and our having the vote again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I hardly think that is necessary. The intent was perfectly clear—as under Standing Order 87. Can I just say to members that we have had a lot of trifling points of order. I am not going to tolerate it much longer.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Nick Smith raised a question about Standing Order 166. Unfortunately, he did interject when you were giving your ruling. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House if you were willing to explain more fully why the Labour Party speakers in this debate have no pecuniary interest, given that, as Dr Smith pointed out, there is a case in the High Court at the moment that, if it were to proceed, would involve every member of the Labour Party caucus being up for an amount in excess of $10,000. That is not a common interest for the rest of Parliament; it is peculiar to the Labour Party. I think those members do clearly have a direct pecuniary interest that is not general to the rest of Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I do not know whether you were here before, Dr Brash, but I clearly made a point that court proceedings do not prevent legislation from proceeding.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 63/1, which is in relation to a party vote. I do this because when it came to the vote in relation to the naming of Dr Nick Smith, after the vote was lost on the voices you directed that there be a party vote. I quote the Speakers’ ruling: “A party vote is not an opportunity for a member who does not agree with the result on the voices to test the position of another party. The Chair will have the Clerk conduct a party vote only if asked to by a member who gave his or her voice contrary to the Chair’s declaration of the result on the voices.” I believe that your decision to require the Clerk to go ahead with a party vote was a wrong decision in terms of Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. I seek that you revisit that decision, because I believe that it invalidated your attempt to have Dr Smith named.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member is quite wrong. That is completely the Speaker’s call. [Interruption] I have dealt with this issue, and I will not have any further discussion on it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a different point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): A different point of order, Dr Brash.

You said that High Court cases did not invalidate legislation going through, and I accept that completely. But Standing Order 166(1) states: “A member must, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, declare any financial interest that the member has in that business.” I think that all we are asking for is that members of the Labour Party who speak on this bill do declare they have a financial interest in its outcome.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, that is not correct.

💬 Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is this a different point of order, Mr Roy? [Interruption] Yes, I have concluded. The information I have been given is that this financial interest is not different from that of other members generally.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand your ruling about the court case, but I will give a situation where it is quite different from that of every other member in this House, and that is the situation of Peter Brown and the New Zealand First MPs, who, by their own words and actions, have declared clearly a financial interest in this bill. They have said that if it is found that their spending has been unlawful, then they will cough up $150,000.

💬 Peter Brown: No, we haven’t.

Peter Brown now says he will not. I notice that he can interrupt on my point of order. [Interruption] I do want to hear Peter Brown’s speech, eventually; I would rather that he was thrown out when he had finished his speech. But by his words he said: “If this legislation doesn’t pass, we’ll have to pay the money. If the legislation does pass, we won’t have to.” I cannot understand a more clear financial interest in a matter before this House than the one that Peter Brown and New Zealand First confront here today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): This affects all members generally. It is not—

It does not affect me because I have paid the money. It does not affect the National Party because they have paid the money. It does not affect the Māori Party because they have paid the money. It does not affect the Green Party because they have paid, anyway. It does not affect the Labour Party because they are not going to pay it, ever!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide, you have made your point.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order? Because I have ruled on this point of order. [Interruption] Please be seated. I want all members to be very clear that I have ruled on this point of order relating to this appropriations bill for the Parliamentary Service. The points that members have been making affect all members generally. I have ruled on this matter.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Can I just check with the member, because I have ruled on this matter.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Madam Assistant Speaker, I think you will find out that it is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I will just make it clear again. The bill is to validate expenditure and provide an interim funding arrangement. It is not to do with members individually—their pecuniary interest. Please continue, Mr Brown.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I am not taking any more. Please be seated. I have warned the member that I have ruled on this point of order several times. If the member wants to raise a new point of order, that is different, but I must warn the member that I have ruled on this point of order. For the member continually to raise it is in itself out of order.

During Rodney Hide’s point of order—and you have now dismissed two members of this House—Peter Brown interrupted. I ask you to treat equally everybody in this House and ask him to leave the Chamber, for the exact reason that my colleague Paula Bennett and my colleague Harry Duynhoven were removed from the Chamber—for interjecting on a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): And while the member was making a point of order—Mr Hide—several members here were raising points of order. I was trying to clarify this matter, which had become complicated. Please continue, Mr Brown.

💬 Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, Mr Roy—is this a new point of order?

💬 Eric Roy: No, it is not because—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): OK, I have ruled—

💬 Eric Roy: Could I please explain.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on this point of order. That is the end of the story.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you repeat your ruling on the point that I made, because I have completely missed the point you made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the points of order that numerous members have made about members not being able to participate in this debate because of their perceived pecuniary interest. What I have said very clearly is that this expenditure relating to the validation of appropriations in Vote Parliamentary Service affects all members generally.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mine is quite separate. I did raise a point of order, and then it was kind of overtaken by other matters. The point I make is, quite simply, that procedural motions are quite prescribed and have to be adhered to accurately, particularly because, in the case of naming a member, it is a very serious matter. There is a very prescribed and stated motion in Standing Order 87. You did not adhere precisely to that wording, so I questioned the validity of your move. You mentioned that we had understood the intent. My point of order is that that is not the point. This is a procedural motion in which very exact wording must be used.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have already ruled on the matter. As I said, the intent was clear in the naming. All members who voted on it are clear about the intent of the naming of a person in this House, as the member—[Interruption] Mr Simon Power, would you like to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Simon Power: I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): As I said, Mr Roy, the intent was clear. All members are clear about the naming of a member. I asked the House to name this member. [Interruption] I am sorry, but I will not enter into this any longer.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we expect, then, to see a written ruling changing the Standing Orders to comply with your determination that as long as the Speaker loosely indicates what is intended, then procedure is deemed to have been followed?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I am sure you cannot, because it is unnecessary.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have dealt with the matter that you have just raised, Mr Brownlee. I have ruled on it.

Madam Assistant Speaker, have you ruled that the Standing Orders, in the case of naming members, no longer apply?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Of course I have not.

Well, that is exactly what you have done. You either follow the Standing Orders or do not. Naming someone is a serious matter. You cannot expect us to be totally compliant while the Speaker gets it wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is absolutely right; the naming of a member is a serious matter. That is why I referred to the Standing Order that the House be asked to name the member. All members of the House are very clear about that, when a member is named. [Interruption] I have dealt with this matter and there will be no further points of order on it.

I am glad that the Leader of the House is here because I seek leave for the naming of Dr Smith to be revoked. The reason for doing that is twofold. Firstly, with great respect to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, I do not believe that when there was no call for a party vote, you were entitled to require a party vote to be taken; and, second—and I respect your ruling on this, but I nevertheless suggest it is not correct—there has been a formal breach of those two Standing Orders that relate to naming, Standing Order 87 and Standing Order 88. So that we can move on, I seek leave for the revocation of the naming of Dr Smith.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek leave to table a document entitled Principles to underpin management by public entities of funding to non-government organisations.

Document not tabled.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we have got ourselves into a bit of an impasse here that it is useful to revisit. This is an important matter. It is one that the House has the right to consider properly. We are being held up here on an issue that is not of some insignificance. I do not wish to undermine your authority at all, but I suggest that it would be appropriate for Dr Worth to seek the leave again, to enable the House to move forward. Clearly, Dr Smith will then be on some pretty clear notice about his behaviour moving forward, and I am sure other members will be, as well.

I seek leave for the naming of Dr Nick Smith to be revoked.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.