Speaker’s Rulings — Maiden Statements—Allocated Time Frame

Members, last Thursday afternoon, I suspended the House for what I considered to be disruption coming from the galleries of Parliament. This disruption occurred after the maiden speech of Oriini Kaipara. That statement was delivered following question time because Te Pāti Māori had asked the Business Committee if they could move that speaking time to accommodate a slot that would mean that more people who were here to see the swearing in could see the maiden speech, as well.

Outside of the Address in Reply debate, maiden speeches are usually at some time between 5.40 and 6 p.m. on a sitting day, meaning that any overtime running into the dinner break would not be taking time from the legislative process of the House. Similarly, if the speech goes over time in the Address in Reply debate, it comes from a party’s allocation.

The Business Committee decision to facilitate the speech following question time was on the understanding that it would be a statement and a waiata, all within 15 minutes allowed under Standing Order 368. That did not occur. The speech went on for quite some time, well past the 15 minutes, followed by a waiata and then a haka from the gallery.

There is no issue with waiata. There is no issue with haka. But there is an issue with the disrespect for process that was shown last Thursday.

The Standing Orders of this House have been developed over 171 years to facilitate the legislative process and to ensure that, in its work, the views of those elected to this Parliament could be heard. Our Standing Orders suppose that all members are honourable members and that they can be taken at their word. They are written and adopted in that light and, accordingly, are not particularly prescriptive about sanctions that the Speaker alone can instigate when agreements of the Business Committee are not observed, or other matters in the House sit outside the Standing Orders. In most cases, this is the prerogative of the Privileges Committee, who consider matters referred to it by the Speaker on complaint of another member.

The Speaker can name a member. If a member is named, as provided in Standing Order 91, with a consequential suspension from the House—Standing Order 94—a vote must be taken so the whole Parliament votes for or against the suspension. The Speaker can require members to leave the Chamber for disruptive behaviour or non-compliance with a direction or a ruling. That occurs periodically and can be seen more as a cooling-down period than a particular admonishment. None of these measures was put in place at a time when members writing them would have contemplated the Parliament being used as a stage on which members’ speaking times associated with the legislative process were more of a performance nature and recorded and posted on social media.

It was disorderly for Oriini Kaipara to continue speaking beyond the allocated 15 minutes, and despite several bells politely indicating to the member that time was up, it was, in my view, contemptuous, after asking the Business Committee for the concession allowing the time of the speech to be straight after question time, to then ignore that agreed allocated time.

The Business Committee is essential for the fair operating of Parliament. It works by seeking unanimous or near-unanimous agreement and proceeds on that basis. As I’ve said, all members are honourable members and should be taken at their word. To ignore a Business Committee decision challenges that premise.

There will be future requests to accommodate various requests from Te Pāti Māori. Consideration of those requests will be clouded by the disruption of last Thursday.

After nearly two years in this role, it is now regrettably clear that some elected to this House see disruption and dissent as more important than legislative achievement. I respect that all members of this House are equally elected, but I think they equally have a responsibility to uphold the dignity of the House. That does not preclude vigorous debate, and it does not imply consensus of views, but it does require respect for process and respect for one another.

To start representation in this House with a referral to the Privileges Committee for an incident that occurred just minutes after being sworn in could be seen as particularly pernicious. I have had no referral request, perhaps because wiser heads in this House know that new members rely heavily on the advice and guidance of more experienced colleagues and leaders.

Failure of the leadership to guide members is beyond the reach of the Standing Orders. Caucus discipline is important. Leaders have an obligation to instil that, and parties receive funding to give effect to the benefit of caucus discipline. It is also to the benefit of individual members who ascribe authority to a caucus.

Last Thursday’s engagement from the gallery could have been accommodated if Oriini Kaipara had stuck to the Business Committee decision. Choosing to ignore that turns celebration into disruption. More than that, it highlights a fractious and, at times, inequitable Parliament.

While I firmly believe that the atmosphere in Parliament is the business of its members and that the Standing Orders should accommodate good humour and reasonable banter, it is my intention that, from this point, I will more critically apply the limited measures available to a Speaker to ensure greater respect is shown from members, one to the other, and the dignity of the House and the processes of the House are upheld.

Later this afternoon, I intend engaging the Business Committee on changes to attendance records, to dress standards, and to leave provisions. Further, from today, question time in the House will revert to Standing Order 397(1), and supplementary questions will be entirely at the discretion of the Speaker.

Respect and dignity should be at the front of minds for all members of this House.