🧪 EXPERIMENTAL / ALPHA — this is an independent prototype, not an official record. Data may be incomplete or wrong - always check the linked Hansard source before relying on it.
Hot Air

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Points of Order — Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal

HansardID: ec21a129-23db-473c-b86e-f68aab6148cf
Back to debates
🗣️ Speech Sir Rt Hon Trevor Mallard (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Hutt South)
Time unknown

Before we go to the next speaker I invite David Clark to make a withdrawal.

🗣️ Speech Hon Dr David Clark (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Dunedin North)
Time unknown

In respect of my previous comment during question time, as requested by the Speaker, I withdraw.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order. I seek your considered ruling on the use of the phrase that I withdrew, and on similar phrases. A quick search of the Hansard has revealed that raising questions about the honesty of members appears to have become more commonplace, and that the exact same entreaty that I used today during question time is recorded on more than one previous occasion in the Hansard, with no such rebuke from the Speaker.

🗣️ Speech Sir Rt Hon Trevor Mallard (New Zealand Labour Party — Member for Hutt South)
Time unknown

I am not prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Speaker or to say that he will come back with a considered ruling. I do not think that it is my place to do so. It may well be that the Speaker does, in fact, look at this and consider whether it is appropriate. However, I will warn the member that Speakers as far back as Statham and Oram have indicated that one has to take particular care with anything that might be a reflection on the Speaker. Alleging inconsistency of that sort is one of the things that is a reflection on the Speaker. I was not in the House this afternoon; I did not hear what happened. I have been briefed on it. The particular words used have been used in the past—there is no doubt about that—and they have also been ruled out of order in the past. It is, I think, a question of context.

If members are, in fact, alleging that a Minister is deliberately not telling the truth, then the appropriate thing to do is to write a letter to the Speaker and to ask for a reference to the Privileges Committee. That is, I think, the approach of the Standing Orders, and members may get more satisfaction through that approach than they do by making comments that sound as if they lead to disorder and cause problems for the House. So what I will do is leave it at that. If Mr Speaker wants to make a considered ruling, then I have no doubt that he will. [Interruption] Sorry, I have just had a quick briefing and, as is often my case, I have declined to take the advice.

🗣️ Spoke in this debate (2)