I presume Ron Mark is trying to attract attention to himself and to NZ First in Parliament but he is not doing himself or his party any favours with his poor behaviour, even by Parliamentary standards.
Yesterday Question was interrupted by the prize pillock.
National MP Dr Juan Yang kicked off Question 8 on Tuesday with some patsies for the Minister of Education..
Just over two minutes in the Speaker David Carter called order and addressed Mark.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will draw your attention to an incident in this House a little while ago—
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the point of order please?
Ron Mark: The point of order is about the inconsistency of rulings from the Chair—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat if he wishes to stay. Throughout the last two questions there has been a constant barrage from that member, making it very difficult for me to hear what was going on. I give the warning quite seriously to the member: if he wishes to stay I suggest he quietens down; if he does not wish to stay then I can assist him very quickly. Supplementary question—
Ron Mark: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I have dealt with the matter.
Ron Mark: A new point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?
Ron Mark: Fresh point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: If it—correction. But just before—the member will take a seat. I am happy to entertain a fresh point of order, but if it is in any way relitigating the territory we have just covered I will then be asking the member to leave the House immediately.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the ruling still stand that we should not read our speeches?
Mr SPEAKER: There has never been a ruling that you must not read a speech. It has certainly been an encouragement for people not to read speeches. Very often through question time, as the member will observe as he spends more time in this House, Ministers do read from a scripted answer.
Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: No. We have dealt with the matter. The matter—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question, the honourable—[Interruption] Order! Can I just remind Ron Mark that that is the very last warning.
Chris Hipkins: If the review of the Education Act is so important—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: A fresh point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just a minute.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I don’t need a ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly what the member said last time on an occasion like this, but I still want to deliver it so he then cannot accuse me of acting precipitously. I have dealt with this matter. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I will hear it, but if I consider it is in any way relitigating the territory just covered by his colleague Ron Mark, then I will not hesitate to ask the right honourable member to leave the Chamber.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Standing Orders are very clear about members being referred to if they are not in the House. When you gave your reply to Ron Mark you used the phrase “if he spends more time in the House”. That is not allowed by the Standing Orders—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I said “as he spends more time in the House”. As he becomes more experienced with the Standing Orders and watches question time more often, he will have—[Interruption] Order! Ron Mark will leave the Chamber. Ron Mark, would you leave the Chamber.
Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber.
I don’t know what Mark was trying to achieve but that just seems like a stupid waste of Parliament’s time.
Mark must have been allowed back in for the first reading to the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill as he the seventh to speak on the Bill.
He began in relative silence with what came across as a smart arse remark directed at the Speaker.
RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is wonderful, actually, to be back in the House, with the opportunity to speak on a piece of legislation, actually…
He slowly worked into his speech, gradually turning to trying to rubbish the Government and National MPs. It wasn’t pretty. In fact it looked and sounded ugly.
But I cannot allow some of the comments and some of the hyperventilating that I have had to bear witness to this evening to go without some comment. I would have thought, actually, that if the Government wanted this legislation through it could have done it quite some time ago at far less cost to the taxpayer.
I get a little bit nauseated by hearing lectures from members of the National Party both here in the House, out on the hustings, and through the media about how concerned they are about taxpayers’ money and the expenditure.
Ironic given the nauseous nature of his barbs.
The other thing that I have got to comment on is Mr Hudson’s comments about choice. What a farcical speech that was. If the member truly believed in choice he would explain to the House why there is no choice—
Brett Hudson: Good choice.
RON MARK: Mr Hudson, you have had your say so now it is our turn. Mr Hudson,
Considering how much Mark interjects when it’s the turn of other MP’s that’s humourless hypocrisy.
…if the member truly believes in freedom of choice then explain why all the members of his party are being whipped tonight. Mr Hudson, let me take one back to the smacking legislation. The choice in the National Party ranks was so clear that members of the National Party back in the old days, you know when Helen Clark was the Prime Minister and John Key was in Opposition ranting and raving about what he is going to do in Government, how appalling the anti-smacking legislation was. That was not choice. That was whipped like a bunch of little puppies—puppies. So Mr Hudson, can it—can it.
Brett Hudson: Says the Winston Peters lapdog.
That was a complete diversion from the bill, dripping with derision.
RON MARK: Because, actually, Mr Hudson, you are like that old Hudson car—slow, smoky, rather rounded at the edges, and going nowhere fast—and no one buys the crap we just heard this evening, thank you.
I want to go on to the other comments of Melissa Lee, one of these other wonderful National Party member, from Korea as Wikipedia says. Melissa Lee told the House in her rather condescending manner, which she is becoming renowned for, that we need to grow up in New Zealand. Well I have got a short message, if you do not like New Zealand go back to Korea. That is the first message. The second message is—[Interruption]—that got them going. The second message is, let us look at public holidays in Korea—let us look at public holidays in Korea. So Korea we have the Korean New Year. Do they work on Korean New Year? No. Let us look at the independence day—[Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I would like to hear what the member is saying.
RON MARK: So let us look at the public holidays in Korea, where nobody—
Hon Amy Adams: Racism and vitriol.
Adams is right. That’s fairly disgraceful from Mark.
RON MARK: Oh, the Minister is upset. This is one Minister in the House who, when she gets her little dander up, cannot resist having a slap. Well, Amy, listen up—
Hon Amy Adams: Only a racist—
RON MARK: I am a racist, well, telling the—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look, this is a robust debate and we will just ask you to calm things down. So Ron Mark, you have the floor.
RON MARK: Without any overtures of racism…
More like an overdose of sarcasm and itony.
…let us look at the holidays in Korea that are public holidays that people do not work on. Coming to New Zealand and telling us we should grow up in our House, where we allow freedom of speech, is a little different to what we see.
Not just racist insults to an MP, but also to another country. We get it that NZ First have something against Asians but this is disgraceful.
Buddha’s birthday, holy heck, so now we say that New Zealanders should have to work on a religious day but in Korea, where Miss Lee comes from, Buddha’s birthday on the eighth of the fourth lunar month is a public holiday where no one works. So let us look at another National Party member. Oh geebers, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. This gentleman also understands and respects the value of religious days and the need for public holidays but he sits in this House ready to take a call, I guess, to support this legislation. But let us have a look at India. There are so many, I just could not read them out in this time that I have available, but one of the religious holidays in India is Easter.
He turns to more ethnic insults.
Easter—where people do not have to work. And there is Good Friday, Easter Sunday, St Thomas the Apostle, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Feast of St Francis Xavier, Christmas Day. And let us have a look at a few others: Eid ul-Fitr, Eid ul-Adha, Eid ul-Ghadeer, and let us not forget Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday. Do not come into this House preaching and telling New Zealanders to grow up. Do not give us the condescending rhetoric.
That sounds like he’s projecting his own characteristics onto others.
Because on one hand we know that although certain people are towing the National Party line like a bunch of little whipped puppies, back in their own world they would never ever dare stand up and say this.
So I come right back to where I started. New Zealand First is happy to support this legislation going to the select committee for a constructive debate and for a constructive analysis.
Don’t expect any analysis nor constructive debate if Mark has anything to do with it.
He went on to meander around the general topic of the Bill.
But this speech was in very poor taste from Mark. He looks determined to compete for the title of nastiest MP.
He tries to copy the disruptiveness of Peters, except he is absent any charm.