Speaker’s Rulings — Behaviour in the Chamber—Dress Code

There’s one further matter that I want to refer to, and it was referred to, or alluded to, by the Hon James Shaw yesterday in his comments of congratulations to me. It goes to dress codes in the Parliament, which are set out on page 151 of McGee and also referred to in Speaker’s ruling 17/7. The essence of the rules for dress in this Parliament is that they should be business attire, and while they’ve been expressed in different ways over the years—and, in fact, when I was first a member, the rules applied to male members of Parliament and not to women, because the earlier rules didn’t anticipate the possibility of women being members of Parliament, even at the stage when I was first a member of Parliament. But they have been changed to this—to “business attire”.

In the 1980s, when I was first a member and before we had air conditioning in this Chamber, it was the practice for gentlemen to be allowed to remove their jackets when it was warm. That was later rescinded because it never quite—well, while the political temperature might have got hot, the physical temperature didn’t reach the heights that it used to before the air conditioning.

But, in my opinion, what has changed since 1984 is the interpretation in most businesses in New Zealand as to what business attire is, and for those reasons, I think it is appropriate to review the interpretation that Speakers have been taking. I intend to do that over the summer break, and I want to invite members to write to me individually with their views on that. I’m not going to take a poll on it, but I’d like to hear reasons and reasoning.

People will also be aware that, with permission, traditional dress—most often from Pasifika communities, but sometimes from others—has been worn during maiden speeches and at other times, and we’ve managed to adjust our rules for that. I am prepared, on an individual basis, to extend that a little bit for the maiden speakers, but I do want to make absolutely clear that until we have a substantial interpretation, I’m not going to allow change by attrition. So there’s an invitation to respond to me, but until then the rules should be obeyed. Thank you.