Housing Legislation Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on the basis of a decision that I made, and this came about when David Seymour raised a point of order about a comment that had been made by Marama Davidson. He took personal offence at the comment that had been made. I ruled that if the member had taken personal offence, the member making the comment should withdraw the comment, which she subsequently did.

In the meantime there were a number of points of order, including one from Metiria Turei that said that I was inconsistent with previous decisions that you, as Speaker, had made. The Hon Annette King made the point that I should consider the decision. I said that I would read the transcript and I would come back on the point that she had brought up, and that I would consider again and report back. I have been consistent over the period of time when someone has taken personal offence—that it is an offence against that person’s integrity—and I believe that if someone feels offended by such a comment, in order to protect the integrity of that person the person making that accusation should, in fact, withdraw the comment, which in this case the member did. We were then to move on, but you have been recalled.

There are two issues, as I understand it; others may have a different view. The first was the question of the definition of “personal offence”. In previous rulings you have made, you have said that where there is personal offence taken, it is offence to the House as a whole, not to the individual. However, the Chair did rule that because Mr Seymour had taken personal offence himself, that was sufficient to ask my colleague to withdraw and apologise. They are two different definitions of “personal offence”, and we sought clarification on which of those definitions should apply.

The second matter was that my colleague was described as a female having female fury righteousness in the debate earlier this afternoon by Mr Seymour. She referred to that comment in her contribution during the Committee stage. Mr Seymour took offence at her reference to his previous statement about her in this debate, and there is a question now about whether or not a member is able to stand and repeat the statements made by other members in this House about themselves, and then be required to withdraw and apologise for that statement. That does not seem consistent with the Standing Orders or the order of the House.

I may be able to assist. The confusion here is that I took offence at being accused of describing the member by her gender. I think that is offensive to me and to the House. I would not attack another politician in that way. The confusion has arisen—and the “yellows” that I have just had emailed through to me will confirm this—because I said that she was a ball of “self-righteous fury”, not a ball of “female fury”. Had I said the latter, I would be the one apologising, but that is not what I said, and the Hansard will confirm that I am correct. Can I suggest to the member that, rather than self-righteousness, she should get some hearing aids.

That was unnecessary, I think we can all agree. My colleague is prepared to accept that she did not get the quote completely correct—once we saw the transcript from Hansard—but, none the less, there still remains the central questions here as to that matter in a debate such as we are having, which is that a member should be able to stand and reflect on the comments made by other members that are made about themselves. And, second, what is the definition of “personal offence” that we are to use in this House? Is it an offence to the individual member of Parliament, or is it an offence to the House? We have had long debates on that. It is now more confusing than ever.

I think in considering that matter there is a need to draw a distinction between whether a member feels they have been misrepresented and whether a member takes offence at a matter, because the remedies for those things are different. If a member feels they have been misrepresented, then there are steps that they can take in order to seek to have that corrected, and the threshold for that would be, if you like, more lenient than for offence. The threshold has to be reasonable for offensiveness, or otherwise we will have members taking offence at everything other members say that they disagree with. But if they feel that they have been misrepresented in the debate, then there are ways that they can seek to correct it. But asking a member to withdraw or apologise, or both, for a comment that a member feels might misrepresent what they have said but that is not in itself offensive, is going to lead the House into a state of quite regular disorder, I would have thought.

I subscribe to the view of Chris Hipkins. I specifically asked the member: “Did he take personal offence?”. If it had been a matter of interpretation, that is a debating point, but I specifically asked “Did the member take offence?”, and that is why I pursued the measure that I did. So I subscribe to your view—it is a very clear one—and that is why I took the course of action that I did.

On the first point, the accusation made is not only personally offensive to me; it brings the House into disrepute. So I think the debate around that is moot. Secondly, we can argue about whether or not the member genuinely misheard what I had said or whether she deliberately attempted to slur me with the accusation, but, one way or another, it was something that caused offence and brought the House into disrepute. So I do not think we actually need a lot of this debate. I think we are actually ready to move on.

Can I just ask about part of the explanations received, particularly from Metiria Turei—I do not understand the point the member is making about misrepresentation. I can understand the comment made about the offence taken, but then you raised a point of misrepresentation that I just cannot follow.

I did not address the question of misrepresentation directly. That was my colleague Chris Hipkins, and I think he is right—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, he then spoke further to your point, but I do not understand the basic point.

The essential point is in a debate—and we all know that this is a rigorous debate, and you tell us that on a regular basis, quite rightly—there is a lot that is said, some of which can be misunderstood. If a member of Parliament stands up and refers to something that somebody has said, particularly if it is a personal comment about them, they should be able to debate, to mention that personal comment, and to make their own analysis about that comment without concern about it being taken as a personal offence. If it is a misrepresentation, then that is a legitimate position for another member to take. But to then use personal offence to force them to withdraw and apologise over a comment that was made about them does not make any sense, and we still get back to the primary issue, which is: what is the definition of “personal offence” that is used by the Speaker?

I thank all members for their contributions. I was involved in a meeting, so I was not listening to the debate as we led into this. So it is a difficult one for me to sense. The tension was here. I do acknowledge that it is a vigorous debate. We are in a situation where we are in urgency. We are debating something that is, obviously, finely balanced within this House on the votes that have been taken, and it is something that is not going to be aired before a select committee.

As to the issue of when offence is taken, you cannot define it exactly. It occurs at a time when offence could be taken by a member. There are times when I have ruled that offence has been taken. I have been surprised that offence has been taken, and I have said that, but if offence is taken and that creates disorder, then a presiding officer, as Mr Tisch has done in this case, will accept that the member has taken offence and ask that that comment be withdrawn. Many times when I have made that decision I have made it without actually hearing the interjection myself; I have relied on the fact that a member said he is offended. If he is offended, it is an offence to the whole House—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion that is what has happened here.

The presiding officer, Mr Tisch, has been the Chair; he has been judging the proceedings. It is his job to keep order in the House. Without doubt, offence was taken. All members can judge whether offence should have been taken. Mr Tisch has decided that the way to then maintain the dignity and the order in this House is to require the member to then withdraw that comment. If it had been more offensive, he may have taken the option of asking the member to withdraw and apologise, but, as I understand it, he did not do that. He simply asked for it to be withdrawn, and I further understand that the member then did withdraw that remark. So on that basis, I completely back Mr Tisch, as he is attempting to maintain order in this Chamber during what has been, without doubt, a fairly tense discussion over the last hour.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just get clarity, then, that it is a legitimate point of order for taking personal offence for a male member to be, in his own mind, in whatever way, accused of sexism, but it is not a legitimate point of order for personal offence for a female member who takes offence at being told she backs rapists.

Order! No, I think I covered that in the very first part by saying there are times when remarks will be made and offence will then be taken at that remark, and a presiding officer needs to immediately decide how best to maintain order. So I am not going to comment on a particular comment that was made as to whether it meets a threshold. A presiding officer, in this case, is required to maintain order in the House. Mr Tisch chose to accept that Mr Seymour had been offended by the comment, and he then asked the member to withdraw. That member did withdraw. That is my final decision.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (continued)