Points of Order — Conduct of Members—Privileges Committee Referral

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I waited for the end of the House business to be able to make this. In your response to the privileges complaints earlier, you mentioned four members, and you distinguished between the actions of three, who approached other members in leaving their seat, and the other member, who did not. In referring all four members to the Privileges Committee, are you distinguishing between those actions?

That’s not for me to distinguish; that’s for the Privileges Committee to determine. The point I’d make is that the disorderly aspect is leaving the seat, where you are privileged to speak from, to conduct activities on the floor of the House while we should be in session. That’s a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that there were a number of MPs who participated in the haka who did not leave their seats. They stood, they participated in it, but they did not leave their seats. How have you determined which members have been referred to the Privileges Committee and which haven’t?

Well, as I’ve just said, I think the action of leaving your seat to move on to the floor of the House to conduct an activity that I certainly considered to have been disruptive is quite a different matter. I’ve also said that the issue of haka, which is not disallowed currently but the circumstances in which it may be allowed as part of the tikanga of the House, as opposed to the celebration that it normally is or has been up to this point, is also a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. Referring people one after the other to the Privileges Committee I don’t think is particularly useful given that we had very much only a bare-majority vote on the naming, and I think it’s now up to members to start making decisions about what they find acceptable in the House, as opposed to relying on past rulings.