Holidays Amendment Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Committee has passed a motion asking that you be recalled to make a ruling. The matter had its genesis in a speech made by the Hon Tau Henare on the Holidays Amendment Bill. In making reference to the Holidays Act Mr Henare made reference to his own personal knowledge of unions and union activity. As part of that he said that the Service and Food Workers Union had been involved in theft, and that the money was from union funds and had been paid to the Labour Party.

Darien Fenton raised a point of order and said that she objected to that statement and found it offensive. I ruled that it was not offensive. I ruled that it was, in fact, a matter of taste, and that the accusation of theft had not been directed at a person, and I left it at that. Subsequently, a point of order was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard, who brought to the attention of the Committee the fact that Darien Fenton had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and that, therefore, an accusation of theft against the Service and Food Workers Union was, by implication, an accusation of theft against Darien Fenton. That piece of information might have been known to people personally, but it certainly was not a matter that was put on the record by the Hon Tau Henare. I ruled that although that may have been the case, no direct accusation had been made against Darien Fenton, and therefore it was a matter of taste, and I refused to rule it out of order.

The Hon Trevor Mallard then raised a further point of order and drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that I also had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and, by implication, was compromised. He thought that it was inappropriate for me to rule on the matter. At that point I simply put the motion to recall the Speaker, and you have been recalled to make a judgment.

In my opinion the issue rests principally on the words of Mr Tau Henare and his making the statement about theft and the Service and Food Workers Union. In my opinion he had not crossed the line on that, regardless of the positions that members of this House have held previously. I thought those matters were not relevant, because they had not been brought into the debate.

The Hon Rick Barker has summarised the situation well, and there is not much doubt about the facts of the matter. The problem as I see it is that there are within the Parliament a large number of people who know that both Mr Barker and Ms Fenton have had national secretary responsibilities for the Service and Food Workers Union, and that they would have been the people legally responsible for theft on the part of the union. If there was theft and disbursement of stolen funds to a particular party, they would have been the people responsible. I know that with Tau Henare we have to be a little bit careful about taking accusations seriously, but if anyone in the Chamber—and I would say that half the people in the Chamber know the facts and the relationships—took that accusation seriously, it is a very bad reflection on those two individuals.

Ms Fenton, quite properly, took offence, because Tau Henare was clearly aiming the comments at her. To be generous to him I think he was not attempting to reflect on Mr Barker, who was in the Chair at the time, but some of us who have been around, in and out of, the union movement for a period of time and know the history, are offended by that. Really, the additional factor for recalling you was that there is always a temptation on the part of a Chair to overcompensate the other way when these matters are being dealt with, and I thought it was therefore appropriate to get the Hon Rick Barker out of the position where he was making a final ruling on something that a number of us knew was a reflection on him personally, through accusations that he was involved in theft and passing money on.

I think that was an interesting contribution and attempted justification from Trevor Mallard, who has just resumed his seat, for disrupting the business of the Committee. Firstly, let me make it very clear that I did not know of the previous associations of Ms Fenton or, for that matter, the Hon Rick Barker, but I do think the Hon Rick Barker has made exactly the right call in this case. I can recall debates earlier this year when we were passing taxation legislation and, repeatedly, Labour members referred to members on this side of the Chamber as people who were advantaging their Tory mates. That was never pulled up by the Speaker; it was made clear that it was a comment in general in the debate.

I think we need to have a robust Parliament. The shrinking violet approach that Mr Mallard wants to take at the moment is not consistent with his general offerings in the Chamber. He will be aware that during the debate on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and on the changes it made to employer and contractor status, just a couple of weeks ago, there were regular references suggesting that members on this side of the Chamber had somehow caved in—I think at one stage the term “bent over” was used—and had acquiesced in a number of fashions to a large corporate. That seemed simply to bring a degree of mirth to the faces on the other side of the Chamber, and Ms Fenton was one of those who enjoyed that particular style of humour.

If we are to become so sensitive to general comments such as those the Hon Tau Henare made, we will be saying very little in this Chamber at all. It was not the theme of Mr Henare’s speech, and I repeat that I think the Hon Rick Barker has made the correct decision in ruling that there was no personal attack in the statement. In fact, there was simply a turn of phrase that was part of the general debate.

I want to make three points in response to what we have heard from the Leader of the House, and I think they reflect concern on this side of Chamber. The first is that although Mr Brownlee may not have been present for the entire debate, members who were present knew very well the status of Ms Fenton as general secretary of the union concerned, because she referred to it a number of times in her speeches, of which there have been several in this debate. Certainly Mr Henare knew about the status of Ms Fenton in respect of the matter.

The second relevant point is that there is a world of difference between accusing a party of “advantaging its Tory mates”, and imputing criminal behaviour to an organisation and, by extension, to a member who has been its principal officer.

Finally, one of the aspects of Mr Barker’s ruling in his rejection of the point of order was his comment, rightly, that this is a Committee of robust debate. But he commented that if a member had made a disorderly statement, or one that caused offence without, in his ruling, breaching the Standing Orders, the proper response from the Opposition would be to engage in similarly robust debate. My submission is that that comment is simply an invitation to disorder in the Chamber, and that is really why I think it is appropriate to uphold the point of order that Mr Mallard originally raised in response to the comment and in support of Ms Fenton having taken offence to it.

Thank you for those comments. This is certainly a robust debate. I was listening, so I heard the interchange—but, I have to say, not all of it. It has been a robust debate. One of the things that I believe is important is that if members feel that they are overstepping the mark, they need to be very mindful of how that could reflect on others. In respect of robust debate, however, I would have to say that the Chair of the Committee was the best person to judge. He was here at the time, and he was able to get the feel for what was happening in Committee, what was being said, and the reactions of members.

Personal reflections, as mentioned by the Hon Trevor Mallard, are covered by Standing Order 116. It refers to a personal reflection against a member or against a party. In the ruling that the Hon Rick Barker made, there was no reference to that Standing Order in terms of interpretation. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 41/7. The same thing applies under the definition of personal reflection—that is, that something dishonourable must be attributed to another member for there to be a personal reflection. Words used robustly in debate that do not impugn the honour of the member will not be ruled out of order.

I say to members that the Chairperson was the best person to judge at the time; he was here. He is the best person to rule on that matter. The personal reflection was not attributed to one particular person. He has ruled in that way, and it is a matter of taste. A reflection has not been made against the member, and I uphold the Chairman’s ruling. It is consistent with rulings of previous Speakers.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you alluded to one further matter in your ruling. Your quotation from Speakers’ rulings goes to the second part of the matter. There are two parts to the objection. One was the objection by Ms Fenton to the reflection on her and her role, but also there was a reflection on parties. Included in the comments of Mr Henare, which I understand that you heard, was an indication that the Labour Party was receiving stolen money. As a member of the Labour Party I find that grossly offensive. It is inaccurate, and I am not sure what the right procedure is—whether we have to go back into Committee for that to be brought up with the Chair, or whether it is appropriate for you to deal with it now. As well as not being able to make reflections against members, there was the matter of making reflections against parties. There was the accusation of both the theft and the receiving, and I take offence at the receiving element, as well.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. Possibly, that should have been brought up when the Chairman was actually making his ruling. I will not add anything further to my ruling. My ruling is clear in terms of personal reflections. I understand the sensitivity of these matters; I certainly do not want to downplay that. The Chairman has ruled. It is in line with previous Speakers’ rulings. That is my ruling.

In Committee

Debate resumed.