Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Criteria and Process

Members, the Hon Kieran McAnulty asked me to rule on the criteria and processes for personal explanations.

First, a personal explanation must be personal to the member making it. Speakers’ ruling 152/6 affirms that. Most commonly, they’re used to correct misleading statements made by the member or used by a member to defend their honour or reputation.

Second, a personal explanation may not be used to attack or criticise other members or persons outside the House. To do so is an abuse of the process—Speakers’ ruling 153/4.

Misuse of personal explanations is particularly problematic, because it makes it less likely that the House will grant leave for future personal explanations—Speaker’s ruling 152/7.

Personal explanations are permitted by agreement of the House. It’s my intention that, from this point on, members seeking that indulgence from the House will need to give a succinct but clear explanation of why they’re seeking the leave, so that the House can make a judgment on that request.

Point of order. It’s clear that that was a considered view, and I appreciate the effort and time that’s gone into it. You use the term “abuse of their privilege”, and you’ve provided the House with some clear guidance as to how a member should approach seeking leave for a personal explanation in the future. Can the House therefore deem from your response that the personal explanation made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters was indeed an abuse of that privilege?

What I would say is that it did not represent the intention of the Speakers’ rulings in this matter—would be a better way to put it. I think the test always has to be: if the House has given someone an opportunity to make a personal statement and that personal statement doesn’t contain anything that might not be said in general debate, then there is no further action required. But the real point is that it is the House’s acquiescence that allows someone to make that personal statement. Therefore, not only me but everyone has to be fully understanding of what it’s about. I think also this sets grounds for further consideration if there is ongoing abuse of that process.